Mani Med., P.C. v Eveready Ins. Co. (2008 NY Slip Op 52697(U))

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

APPELLATE TERM: 2nd, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS

DECISION

Motion by respondent for leave to appeal to the Appellate Division from the order of this court dated January 15, 2008 denied as academic.

On the court’s own motion, reargument of the order and decision of this court, dated January 15, 2008, in the above entitled action, is granted and, upon reargument, the order and decision of this court dated January 15, 2008 are vacated and the following is substituted as the decision of the court:

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Thomas D. Raffaele, J.), entered May 9, 2006, deemed from a judgment entered November 27, 2006 (see CPLR 5501 [c]). The judgment, entered pursuant to the May 9, 2006 order granting plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $5,805.99.

Judgment affirmed without costs.

In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, plaintiff moved for summary judgment. Defendant opposed the motion, contending that plaintiff failed to make a prima facie showing because plaintiff did not establish the existence of a valid assignment; that plaintiff’s claim for $82.89 was timely denied on the ground that it was subject to the personal injury protection deductible contained within the insurance policy issued to plaintiff’s assignor; and that plaintiff’s remaining claims were timely denied based upon affirmed peer review reports. In reply, plaintiff asserted that defendant’s peer review reports did not constitute evidence in admissible form in that they failed to comply with CPLR 2106 since the doctor’s signatures were affixed by stamp or generated by computer. The court held that plaintiff [*2]made a prima facie showing and that defendant’s peer review reports did not constitute evidence in admissible form because the signatures were not affixed in accordance with CPLR 2106. As a result, the lower court granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, and judgment was subsequently entered thereon. This appeal by defendant ensued.

Defendant argues that plaintiff failed to make a prima facie showing because plaintiff did not demonstrate that it possessed a valid assignment. Even assuming that a prima facie case requires proof of a valid assignment, where, as here, the claim forms stated that the assignor’s signature was on file,’ such a burden is satisfied, inasmuch as defendant did not timely take action to verify the existence of a valid assignment (see Hospital for Joint Diseases v Travelers Prop. Cas. Ins. Co., 9 NY3d 312 [2007]). Since defendant raises no other issue with respect to plaintiff’s establishment of its prima facie case, we do not pass on the propriety of the implicit determination of the court below with respect thereto.

While plaintiff sought summary judgment, inter alia, upon its claim form dated December 23, 2002 in the sum of $746.01, the record is devoid of any proof of a denial of claim form corresponding to plaintiff’s $746.01 claim form. (We note that the supervisor of defendant’s no-fault department submitted an affidavit in opposition in which she stated that defendant received separate claims seeking the sums of $82.89 and $663.23.’ The sum of the foregoing two claims does not equal $746.01. However, two of the NF-10 denial of claim forms annexed to defendant’s opposing papers indicated that they denied separate claims seeking the sums of $82.89 and $663.12, the sum of which does equal $746.01. Defendant makes no attempt to explain this discrepancy.) As a result, plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment upon its claim for $746.01.

Further, with respect to plaintiff’s remaining claims, the court below held that the peer review reports submitted by defendant in opposition to plaintiff’s motion were inadmissible inasmuch as they failed to comply with CPLR 2106. Where, as here, the signatures appear to be affixed by stamp or generated by a computer, plaintiff’s assertion, in its reply papers, that such peer review reports did not constitute evidence in admissible form due to a failure to comply with CPLR 2106 would ordinarily raise an issue of fact that cannot be resolved on a motion for summary judgment (see Seoulbank, NY Agency v D & J Export & Import Corp., 270 AD2d 193 [2000]; Dyckman v Barrett, 187 AD2d 553 [1992]; see also James v Albank, 307 AD2d 1024 [2003]). However, inasmuch as defendant’s counsel has submitted papers to this court in opposition to plaintiff’s motion for leave to appeal to the Appellate Division from the original order of this court dated January 15, 2008, (which motion has been rendered academic by the issuance of this decision and order), conceding that [t]he reports in question contain stamped signatures,’ and there is nothing in the record to indicate that the stamped signatures were placed on the reports by the doctor who performed the peer reviews or at his direction, it is our view that defendant failed to raise a triable issue of fact with respect to the claim at issue (see Vista Surgical Supplies, Inc. v Travelers Ins. Co., 50 AD3d 778 [2008]).

Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.
Pesce, P.J., and Rios, J., concur.
Golia, J., concurs in a separate memorandum.
Golia, J., concurs in the result only, in the following memorandum:

While I agree with the ultimate disposition in the decision reached by the majority, I wish [*3]to note that I am constrained to agree with certain propositions of law set forth in cases cited therein which are inconsistent with my prior expressed positions and generally contrary to my views. In particular, I wish to note that, as stated in my dissenting opinion in Uptodate Med. Serv., P.C. v Lumbermens Mut Cas. Co. (___ Misc 3d ___, 2008 Slip Op ______ [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2008]), an appellate court
“should always consider the issue of whether a prima facie showing has been made, irrespective of whether the issue was raised by the defendant” (see also Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320 [1986]).
Decision Date: July 25, 2008