DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the appeal from the order dated July 13, 2000, is dismissed; and it is further,
ORDERED that the order dated February 4, 2000, is affirmed; and it is further,
ORDERED that the respondent is awarded one bill of costs.
We agree with the Supreme Court that the defendant had a duty to disclaim as soon as reasonably possible on the basis of the automobile exclusion contained in its commercial general liability policy (see, Insurance Law § 3420[d]; Matter of Worcester Ins. Co. v. Bettenhauser, 95 N.Y.2d 185; Dependible Janitorial Servs. v. Transcontinental Ins. Co., 212 A.D.2d 946). We also find that there is an issue of fact as to whether the defendant disclaimed as soon as reasonably possible (see generally, Osterreicher v. Home Mut. Ins. Co. of Binghamton, N.Y., 272 A.D.2d 926; Murphy v. Hanover Ins. Co., 239 A.D.2d 323).
There is no valid excuse for the defendant's failure to submit, at the time of its first motion, all of the material submitted in its subsequent motion. That subsequent motion was therefore, in effect, one for reargument, and the order denying that motion is not appealable (see, Rivers v. Fuller Brush Co., 275 A.D.2d 449 [2d Dept., Aug. 28, 2000]). The appeal from that order is therefore dismissed.