Plaintiff's delay in disclaiming coverage based on the exclusion for vehicles for hire in the subject policy was unreasonable as a matter of law ( see, Hartford Ins. Co. v. County of Nassau, 46 N.Y.2d 1028). Defendants-respondents' complaint in the underlying action, served more than 19 months before plaintiff's notice of disclaimer, and the affidavit from defendant-respondent's physician in the underlying action, served almost a year before plaintiff's notice of disclaimer, were all very clear in describing the vehicle in which defendant-respondent was a passenger as a livery car, and more than adequate to put plaintiff on notice that its insured's original statement to the contrary was probably false and that a disclaimer was all but certain. Under the circumstances, it was unreasonable for plaintiff to await the insured's deposition without taking other, more prompt steps to investigate the question of coverage ( see, Allstate Ins. Co. v. Gross, 27 N.Y.2d 263, 270).
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Wallach, Williams and Mazzarelli, JJ.