Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
The appellant contends that the Supreme Court erred in granting the petitioner a permanent stay of arbitration because his insurance policy did in fact provide "underinsurance" coverage. We disagree. In order to be covered against "underinsured" motorists, an insured must purchase optional "Supplementary Uninsured Motorist Insurance" (Insurance Law § 3420 [f] [2]; see, Matter of Royal Ins. Co. v Vinciguerra, 167 A.D.2d 873; Matter of Metropolitan Prop. Liab. Ins. Co. v Villarrubia, 119 A.D.2d 576, 577). Here, the "declaration" page of the petitioner's policy clearly indicates that the appellant simply purchased uninsured motorist coverage (see, Insurance Law § 3420 [f] [1]). Moreover, the space for what the petitioner referred to as "underinsured" motorist coverage, which is the commonly known name for "Supplementary Uninsured Motorist Insurance", was blank. Also, the policy does not include a supplementary uninsured motorist insurance endorsement (see, Matter of Royal Ins. Co. v Vinciguerra, supra, at 874; Terwilliger v American Motorists Ins. Co., 156 A.D.2d 805, 806). Based on the foregoing, we find that the policy did not provide "underinsured" motorist coverage. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the petition. O'Brien, J.P., Copertino, Pizzuto and Santucci, JJ., concur.