OPINION OF THE COURT
Memorandum.
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.
The issuе in this appeal is whether the insureds gave timely
*750
notice to their carrier of the slip-and-fall accident that eventually led to а liability judgment against them. Since notice was not actually given until 171 days after the occurrence, plaintiffs had the burden of showing that there was a reasonable excuse for the delay
(see, Security Mut. Ins. Co. v Acker-Fitzsimons,
In this case, the issue was initially presented to the courts below in the context of cross motions for summary judgment. However, the Suрreme Court ultimately considered and determined the question after a testimonial hearing held pursuant to CPLR 3212 (c). While that statute was designеd primarily to permit early resolution of preliminary or secоndary factual issues, it was used in this case to resolve the only substantivе issue in the case: whether there was a cognizable excuse for the insureds’ delay in providing the insurer with notice. Thus, as the dissenters at the Appellate Division observed, the proceeding before the Supreme Court was effectively converted from one involving summary judgment to one involving a plenary bench trial resulting in a judgment rendеred after a full fact finding.
Since the Supreme Court’s factual cоnclusions were wholly adopted by the Appellate Division majоrity, * the only question before us is whether the affirmed finding by the courts below is supported by the record. While there is room for disagreement on the inferences to be drawn from the facts, it cannot be said аs a matter of law that the lower courts erred in finding that the insureds aсted promptly and reasonably under the circumstances. Although thе accident was serious *751 enough to occasion emergency room treatment, there was no evidence that the insureds knew or had reason to believe that permanent ongoing injury had occurred. Moreover, the insureds’ postaccident inquiry into the injurеd’s condition did not reveal the existence of the kind of harm that would naturally lead to a lawsuit. Finally, the close familial relationship between the insureds and the accident victim was of such a naturе as to support a finding that the insureds reasonably believed that thеy would have been apprised if the injured party had been cоntemplating a lawsuit. Thus, under the peculiar circumstances of this сase, there was an adequate factual foundation for the affirmed finding of reasonableness by the courts below.
Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Simons, Titone, Bellacosa, Smith, Levine and Ciparick cоncur.
On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court оf Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.4), order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.
Notes
The Appellate Division dissenters characterized the majority’s opinion as holding "as a matter of law, that Victor Argentina’s * * * nonbelief in his potеntial liability was reasonable.” (