Ordered that the orders are reversed, on the law, with one bill of costs payable by the petitioner respondent, and the petitions are dismissed.
The orders appealed from must be reversed because, as the petitioner concedes, equitable estoppel cannot be used to create coverage where none exists (see, Zappone v Home Ins. Co., 55 N.Y.2d 131; Schiff Assocs. v Flack, 51 N.Y.2d 692; Nassau Ins. Co. v Manzione, 112 A.D.2d 408, lv denied 66 N.Y.2d 605).
The petitioner's remaining contention as to the effective date of the policy is unpreserved for our review (see, Telaro v Telaro, 25 N.Y.2d 433, 438; Orellano v Samples Tire Equip. Supply Corp., 110 A.D.2d 757, 758). Thompson, J.P., Rubin, Spatt and Balletta, JJ., concur.