Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
While CPLR 7511 (a) states that an application to vacate or modify an award shall be made by a party within 90 days after its delivery to him, the party may wait and make his arguments for vacating or modifying the award in opposition to a motion to confirm the award (see, State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v Fireman's Fund Ins. Co., 121 A.D.2d 529; see also, Karlan Constr. Co. v. Burdick Assocs. Owners Corp., 166 A.D.2d 416; Vilceus v North Riv. Ins. Co., 150 A.D.2d 769). However, we find that the Supreme Court properly rejected the claim of Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company (hereinafter Nationwide) that the award lacked a rational basis. The medical report submitted by the petitioner in support of her claim, which included objective findings by her treating physician with respect to the permanency of the injuries she had sustained as a result of the accident, which occurred nearly two years before the submitted prognosis, provided an adequate basis for the arbitrator to find that petitioner had sustained "serious injury" as defined by Insurance Law § 5102 (d) (see, Matter of Commercial Union Ins. Co. v. Ewall, 168 A.D.2d 247, 249; cf., Matter of Fernandez [Universal Underwriters Ins. Co.], 130 A.D.2d 657, 658).
We have examined Nationwide's contentions with respect to the applicability and validity of the policy set-off clause contained in the underinsurance endorsement and find them to be without merit (see, Matter of Federal Ins. Co. v. Reingold, 181 A.D.2d 769; Passaro v. Metropolitan Prop. Liab. Ins. Co., 128 Misc.2d 21, affd 124 A.D.2d 647; Matter of United Community Ins. Co. v Mucatel, 127 Misc.2d 1045, affd 119 A.D.2d 1017, affd 69 N.Y.2d 777; Garry v. Worldwide Underwriters Ins. Co., 120 Misc.2d 91, affd 101 A.D.2d 717). Lawrence, J.P., O'Brien, Copertino and Santucci, JJ., concur.