Ordered that the order and judgment is affirmed, with costs.
The Supreme Court properly granted the defendants' cross motion for summary judgment. The defendants' insurance policies contained unambiguous language which excluded the vehicle involved in the accident from coverage ( see, Zappone v. Home Ins. Co., 55 N.Y.2d 131; Government Empls. Ins. Co. v. Kligler, 42 N.Y.2d 863; Creech v. Knitter, 88 A.D.2d 985, affd 57 N.Y.2d 712). Further, since the vehicle was not covered under the policies, the defendants did not have a duty to deny coverage under Insurance Law § 3420 (d) ( see, Zappone v. Home Ins. Co., supra; Commissioners of State Ins. Fund v. Hermitage Ins. Co., 225 A.D.2d 649; Matter of Government Empls. Ins. Co. v. Hehl, 203 A.D.2d 570).
In light of our determination, we need not reach the plaintiff's remaining contentions.
Rosenblatt, J. P., Ritter, Krausman and Luciano, JJ., concur.