May 15, 2026

Big Apple Delivery Supply Corp. v Plymouth Rock Assur. Corp. of N.Y. (2026 NY Slip Op 50794(U))

Headnote

The insurer failed to prove proper and timely mailing of denials, defeating summary judgment on its medical-necessity defense. The litigation specialist's description of standard mailing procedures omitted how proper postage was affixed and how and when envelopes reached the postal service or another carrier. The insurer therefore failed to establish that the medical-necessity defense was not precluded. The Appellate Term, Second Department, reversed and denied that branch of the insurer's motion. It remitted for determination of the unreached fee-schedule and policy-exhaustion branches, because failure to deny within 30 days does not preclude either a defense that charges exceed the fee schedule or a defense that policy limits were exhausted.

Reported in New York Official Reports at Big Apple Delivery Supply Corp. v Plymouth Rock Assur. Corp. of N.Y. (2026 NY Slip Op 50794(U))

Big Apple Delivery Supply Corp. v Plymouth Rock Assur. Corp. of N.Y.
2026 NY Slip Op 50794(U) [89 Misc 3d 126(A)]
Decided on May 15, 2026
Appellate Term, Second Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.


Digest-Index Classification: Insurance—No-Fault Automobile Insurance–Denial of Claim–Proper and Timely Mailing

Big Apple Delivery Supply Corp., as Assignee of Amadou Ndiaye, Appellant,

v

Plymouth Rock Assurance Corporation of New York, Respondent.

Kopelevich & Feldsherova, P.C. (Galina Feldsherova of counsel), for appellant. Nicolini, Paradise, Ferretti & Sabella (Sam M. Rizzitelli, III of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Richmond County (Michael J. Pinto, J.), dated March 11, 2025. The order granted the branch of defendant’s motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the equipment provided by plaintiff was not medically necessary.

[*1]

ORDERED that the order is reversed, with $30 costs, the branch of defendant’s motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the equipment provided by plaintiff was not medically necessary is denied, and the matter is remitted to the Civil Court for a determination of the remaining branches of defendant’s motion.

In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the grounds that the equipment provided by plaintiff to its assignor was not medically necessary, that the equipment was not billed in accordance with the applicable fee schedule, and that the policy limits had been exhausted. By order dated March 11, 2025, the Civil Court (Michael J. Pinto, J.) granted the branch of defendant’s motion seeking summary judgment on the ground of lack of medical necessity, without reaching the other two grounds for dismissal. On appeal, plaintiff argues that defendant failed to establish timely and proper mailing of the denial of claim forms.

Upon a review of the record, we find that defendant failed to establish that the denials had been properly and timely mailed. In describing defendant’s standard office mailing practices and procedures, defendant’s litigation specialist did not set forth, among other required details, how proper postage is affixed, or how and when envelopes are delivered to the care and custody of the United States Postal Service or other carrier (see Progressive Cas. Ins. Co. v Infinite Ortho Prods., Inc., 127 AD3d 1050 [2015]; St. Vincent’s Hosp. of Richmond v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 50 AD3d 1123 [2008]; Contemporary Acupuncture, P.C. v Allstate Ins. Co., 51 Misc 3d [*2]132[A], 2016 NY Slip Op 50464[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2016]). Thus, defendant failed to establish that it is not precluded from raising its defense of lack of medical necessity. Consequently, the branch of defendant’s motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground of lack of medical necessity should have been denied.

As the failure to issue a denial of the claim within 30 days does not preclude a defense “that the coverage limits of the subject policy have been exhausted” (New York & Presbyt. Hosp. v Allstate Ins. Co., 12 AD3d 579, 580 [2004] [internal quotation marks omitted]) or a defense that plaintiff is seeking to recover amounts that are in excess of the fee schedule (see Oleg’s Acupuncture, P.C. v Hereford Ins. Co., 58 Misc 3d 151[A], 2018 NY Slip Op 50095[U] [App Term 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2018]), we remit the matter to the Civil Court for a determination of the remaining branches of defendant’s summary judgment motion.

Accordingly, the order is reversed, the branch of defendant’s motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the equipment provided by plaintiff was not medically necessary is denied, and the matter is remitted to the Civil Court for a determination of the remaining branches of defendant’s motion.

TOUSSAINT, P.J., BUGGS and QUIÑONES, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Jennifer Chan

Chief Clerk

Decision Date: May 15, 2026