Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
Contrary to the appellant's contention, there are conflicting endorsements in the subject insurance policy. It is well established that an insurance policy must be construed in favor of the policyholder if reasonably susceptible to two different constructions, and any ambiguities are to be resolved in favor of the policyholder and against the carrier (see, Levinson v Aetna Cas. Sur. Co., 42 A.D.2d 811). Therefore, the parties were properly directed to proceed to arbitration in accordance with the rules of the American Arbitration Association.
In light of the foregoing determination, we need not consider the appellant's remaining contentions. Bracken, J.P., Rosenblatt, Miller and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.