In Century Indem. Co. v. Brooklyn Union Gas Co. (58 AD3d 573 [1st Dept 2009]), the Appellate Division, First Department unanimously affirmed Supreme Court's determination that an issue of fact' existed as to whether the Insured's duty to give notice to an excess insurer had arisen before the City of New York advised it that it intended to bring an action with respect to one of the Insured's MGPs. While the standard is not identical in 'the excess insurance context the case provides useful guidance. The First Department concluded that giving "the insured the benefit of the inferences as opponent of the motion, it cannot be determined...that the insured's duty to provide notice had arisen from its knowledge of consultant reports, which were not definitive as to the extent of the contamination, the degree of remediation needed or the actual rather than the generalized projected remediation costs, and the regulatory agency involvement that did not mandate any significant action" (Century Indem. Co. v. Brooklyn Union Gas Co., 58 AD3d at 574 ).