Renewal was properly denied since the Workers' Compensation Board decision upon which defendant relies had been in existence for almost 18 months prior to defendant's initial motion for summary judgment, and should have been brought to the court's attention at that time ( Foley v. Roche, 68 A.D.2d 558, 568). In any event, even if a more flexible approach to renewal were warranted here ( see, De Almeida v. Finesod, 160 A.D.2d 491, 492), and renewal granted to consider the Workers' Compensation Board's decision, the result would be the same, since the Board denied benefits on the ground that the injured person's "[d]isability [was] less than waiting period", and not on the ground of his employment status, thus leaving unresolved the applicability of the policy exclusion for injuries sustained by an employee of the insured in the course of employment. Nor is there merit to defendant's claim of noncompliance with the notice provision of the policy. Plaintiffs demonstrated a good-faith and reasonable belief in their nonliability under the Workers' Compensation Law ( see, Security Mut. Ins. Co. v. Acker-Fitzsimons Corp., 31 N.Y.2d 436, 441), their insurance agent having advised them to that effect ( see, Mighty Midgets v. Centennial Ins. Co., 47 N.Y.2d 12), and there otherwise having been no indication that a liability claim would be brought against them ( see, 875 Forest Ave. Corp. v. Aetna Cas. Sur. Co., 37 A.D.2d 11, affd 30 N.Y.2d 726).

Concur — Murphy, P.J., Sullivan, Rosenberger, Ross and Tom, JJ.