Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
Contrary to the plaintiff's contention, "[I]nsurance Law § 3420 (d) is inapplicable to this case since the underlying claim does not involve death or bodily injury" ( Incorporated Vil. of Pleasantville v Calvert Ins. Co., 204 AD2d 689, 690; see Fairmont Funding v Utica Mut. Ins. Co., 264 AD2d 581). Thus, the defendant's delay — even assuming it was unreasonable — will not estop the insurer from disclaiming unless the insured has suffered prejudice by virtue of the insurer's conduct ( see Corcoran v Abbott Sommers, Inc., 143 AD2d 874, 876; Fairmont Funding v Utica Mut. Ins. Co., supra at 581-582).
On this record, we agree with the Supreme Court's determination that the plaintiff failed to make the requisite prima facie showing of prejudice ( see Vecchiarelli v Continental Ins. Co., 277 AD2d 992; United States Fid. Guar. Co. v Weiri, 265 AD2d 321; Fairmont Funding v Utica Mut. Ins. Co., supra; compare with State Farm Ins. Co. v O'Brien, 242 AD2d 381) and, therefore, was not entitled to judgment as a matter of law ( see Ayotte v Gervasio, 81 NY2d 1062).
In light of our determination, we do not reach the parties' remaining contentions.