Industry correctly argues that a March 2005 letter to defendant, written on Industry's behalf by its own insurer's claims administrator, seeking coverage for Industry as an additional insured, constituted timely notice to the insurer within the meaning of Insurance Law § 3420 (a) (3), and as such required a timely disclaimer from defendant ( see JT Magen v Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 64 A.D.3d 266; Bovis Lend Lease LMB Inc. v Garito Contr., Inc., 38 AD3d 260, 261; Bovis Lend Lease LMB, Inc. v Royal Surplus Lines Ins. Co., 27 AD3d 84, 89-90). Because defendant's disclaimer of coverage, which was based on Industry's allegedly untimely notice, was not issued until seven months later, it was untimely and therefore ineffective ( see Insurance Law § 3420 [d]; West 16th St. Tenants Corp. v Public Serv. Mut. Ins. Co., 290 AD2d 278, lv denied 98 NY2d 605; Consolidated Edison Co. of N.Y. v United States Fid. Guar. Co., 263 AD2d 380, 381; Thomson v Power Auth. of State of N.Y., 217 AD2d 495, 497). Concur.