Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
"It is settled law in this State that a motion to withdraw as counsel is a poor vehicle to test an insurer's right to disclaim liability or deny coverage" ( Monaghan v Meade, 91 AD2d 1014, 1015; see Brothers v Burt, 27 NY2d 905, 906; Rusolo v Skate Odyssey, 109 AD2d 875; cf. Dillon v Otis El. Co., 22 AD3d 1). Rather "[t]he appropriate vehicle for resolving a dispute over the coverage offered by a policy is a declaratory judgment action in which the [insured] would be able to adequately litigate the facts of the insurance carrier's disclaimer" ( Pryer v DeMatteis Orgs., 259 AD2d 476, 477; see Sojka v 43 Wooster LLC, 19 AD3d 266, 267; Garcia v Zito, 242 AD2d 258, 259; Laura Accessories v A.P.A. Warehouses, 140 AD2d 182).