DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
Contrary to the appellant's contention, the subject insurance policy did not provide underinsured motorist coverage for the underlying accident. Further, because the noncoverage arose from a lack of inclusion, not a policy exclusion, a timely disclaimer of coverage was not required (see Markevics v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 97 N.Y.2d 646; Worcester Ins. Co. v. Bettenhauser, 95 N.Y.2d 185; Handelsman v. Sea Ins. Co., 85 N.Y.2d 96; Zappone v. Home Ins. Co., 55 N.Y.2d 131; Sphere Drake Ins. Co. v. Block 7206 Corp., 265 A.D.2d 78).
RITTER, J.P., ALTMAN, H. MILLER and COZIER, JJ., concur.