Ordered that the order and judgment is affirmed, with costs to the respondent-respondent.
The Supreme Court held that the respondent Brenda Mazza's insurance policy contained inconsistent provisions as to the circumstances under which a policy holder is required to file a statement under oath in order to acquire certain postaccident benefits. We agree. In accordance with well established law, we construe the inconsistency against the carrier (see, Reisman v Coleman, 193 A.D.2d 659, 660), and we conclude that the Supreme Court properly denied the carrier's petition to stay arbitration (see, Matter of Empire Ins. Co. v. Kaparos, 183 A.D.2d 566). Sullivan, J.P., Balletta, Rosenblatt and Florio, JJ., concur.