They also entertain such arguments in response to claims by insurers for recoupment of defense costs expended pursuant to a reservation of rights. See, e.g. , Loeffler v. Sirius Am. Ins. Co. 82 A.D.3d 1172, 923 N.Y.S.2d 550 (2011). Golden Insurance has provided no reason that the Court should depart from that practice and precedent in this case.
Since this ground was not raised in the letter of disclaimer, it may not be asserted now (see General Acc. Ins. Group v. Cirucci, 46 N.Y.2d 862, 864, 414 N.Y.S.2d 512, 387 N.E.2d 223 ). Therefore, we agree with the plaintiffs that the insurer is precluded from disclaiming coverage on the ground that the plaintiffs failed to comply with the policy's notice provisions (see Matter of AutoOne Ins. Co. v. Sarvis, 111 A.D.3d 824, 975 N.Y.S.2d 457 ; Loeffler v. Sirius Am. Ins. Co., 82 A.D.3d 1172, 1173, 923 N.Y.S.2d 550 ). Accordingly, the plaintiffs established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law under Insurance Law § 3420(a)(2) (see Creinis v. Hanover Ins. Co., 59 A.D.3d 371, 374, 872 N.Y.S.2d 544 ), and the insurer, in opposition, established that the applicable policy limit was $1,000,000 (see Giraldo v. Washington Intl. Ins. Co., 103 A.D.3d 775, 776, 962 N.Y.S.2d 171 ), but failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Alvarez v. Prospect Hosp., 68 N.Y.2d 320, 508 N.Y.S.2d 923, 501 N.E.2d 572 ).
The notice provided to NGM by CHB of plaintiff s claim against it, arising out of the subject accident, also operated to provide NGM with notice of the Conde Defendants claim as against CHB, NGM's insured (Steinberg v. Hermitage Ins. Co., 26 A.D.3d 426, 809 N.Y.S.2d 569 (2d Dept., 2006); Loeffler c. Sirius America Insurance Co., 82 A.D.3d 1172, 923 N.Y.S.2d 550 (2d Dept., 2011); Massachusetts Bay Ins. Co. v. Flood, 128 A.D.2d 683, 513N.Y.S.2d 182(2d Dept., 1987); cf. 23-08-18 Jackson Realty Assoc. v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 53 A.D.3d 541, 543, 863 N.Y.S.2d 35 [2d Dept., 2008]).
The appeal from the order must be dismissed because the right of direct appeal therefrom terminated with the entry of judgment in the action ( see Matter of Aho, 39 N.Y.2d 241, 248, 383 N.Y.S.2d 285, 347 N.E.2d 647). The issues raised on the appeal from the order are brought up for review and have been considered on the appeal from the judgment ( see CPLR 5501[a][1]; Loeffler v Sirius America Insurance Company, 82 A.D.3d 1172, ––– N.Y.S.2d ––––, 2011 WL 1206154 [Appellate Division Docket No. 2010–02981; decided herewith] ).