Ordered that the order and judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the insured's contention, there is sufficient evidence in the record from which the hearing court could determine that the disclaimer issued by the petitioner Prudential Property Casualty Insurance Company (hereinafter Prudential) was not unreasonably delayed (see, Insurance Law § 3420 [d]). The record demonstrates that slightly more than two months elapsed between Prudential's receipt of the insured's claim and the issuance of the disclaimer on the ground that the driver's license of the insured was under suspension at the time of the alleged accident. However, the claim letter and accompanying document submitted to Prudential by the insured's attorney did not on their face immediately alert Prudential to possible grounds for a disclaimer (cf., Matter of Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Steiner, 199 A.D.2d 507; Allstate Ins. Co. v. Centennial Ins. Co., 187 A.D.2d 690). Moreover, Prudential came forward with adequate evidence establishing that, during the period in question, it engaged in a reasonably prompt, thorough, and diligent investigation of the claim and repeatedly and unsuccessfully attempted to have the insured made available for the purpose of providing a written statement in accordance with the requirements of the policy (see generally, Matter of Allcity Ins. Co. [Jimenez], 78 N.Y.2d 1054; cf., Hartford Ins. Co. v County of Nassau, 46 N.Y.2d 1028; Matter of Eagle Ins. Co. [Morel], 202 A.D.2d 1064; Nova Cas. Co. v. Charbonneau Roofing, 185 A.D.2d 490). Accordingly, we discern no basis for disturbing the hearing court's conclusion. Bracken, J.P., Sullivan, Miller and Goldstein, JJ., concur.