Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs to the third-party defendant Styro Sales Company.
We find, as did the Supreme Court, that triable issues of fact exist as to whether, inter alia, the plaintiff rejected the nonconforming goods in a timely fashion (see, Fil-Coil Co. v International Power Sys. Equip. Corp., 123 A.D.2d 599; General Elec. Credit Corp. v. Xerox Corp., 112 A.D.2d 30). Accordingly, the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment was correctly denied.
Additionally, we note that it was proper for the third-party defendant to have opposed the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment based upon the defenses available in the main action (see, CPLR 1008; Lewis v. Borg-Warner Corp., 35 A.D.2d 722; T.R. Am. Chems. v. Seaboard Sur. Co., 116 Misc.2d 874). Brown, J.P., Eiber, Sullivan and Harwood, JJ., concur.