Law Office of Peter C. Merani, P.C. (Eric M. Wharburg, Esq.), for appellant. Israel, Israel & Purdy, LLP (Ryan B Berry, Esq.), for respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Devin P. Cohen, J.), entered July 6, 2015. The order, insofar as appealed from as limited by the brief, denied the branches of defendant’s motion seeking to modify, pursuant to CPLR 5019 (a) and 5240, a judgment of the same court (Lisa S. Ottley, J.) entered March 3, 2014, following a nonjury trial.

ORDERED that the order, insofar as appealed from, is affirmed, with $25 costs.

Following a nonjury trial in this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, the Civil Court (Lisa S. Ottley, J.) awarded plaintiff a judgment in the principal sum of $2,114.50. The court noted that the parties had stipulated that, among other things, defendant had timely denied the claims at issue. The judgment was entered on March 3, 2014. Eight months later, defendant moved, insofar as is relevant to this appeal, pursuant to CPLR 5019 (a) and 5240, to modify the judgment on the ground that the coverage limits of the insurance policy had been exhausted. Plaintiff opposed the motion. Defendant appeals from so much of an order of the Civil Court entered July 6, 2015 as denied defendant’s motion.

In support of its motion, defendant argued that there are no funds available to pay the judgment because the $50,000 policy limit in basic personal injury protection had been exhausted. Assuming, arguendo, that such contention, if established, would entitle defendant to some form of postjudgment relief (see e.g. CPLR 5015 [a]), we find that, in any event, defendant’s motion papers failed to establish an exhaustion of the coverage limits of the insurance policy at issue, as defendant failed to demonstrate that the policy had been exhausted at the time the claims at issue were deemed complete (see 11 NYCRR 65-3.15; Alleviation Med. Servs., P.C. v Allstate Ins. Co., 55 Misc 3d 44 [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2017]; see Nyack Hosp. v General Motors Acceptance Corp., 8 NY3d 294 [2007]). Furthermore, [*2]as defendant has not argued, let alone demonstrated, that there was a technical defect or ministerial mistake in the judgment “not affecting a substantial right of a party” (CPLR 5019 [a]; see Herpe v Herpe, 225 NY 323 [1919]; Chmelovsky v Country Club Homes, Inc., 111 AD3d 874 [2013]; Mount Sinai Hosp. v Country Wide Ins. Co., 81 AD3d 700 [2011]), defendant has established no basis to disturb the judgment.

Accordingly, the order, insofar as appealed from, is affirmed.

Pesce, P.J., Weston and Aliotta, JJ., concur.

[*1]

Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County, May 25, 2017

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

The Rybak Firm, PLLC, Brooklyn (Mikhail Kopelevich of counsel), for plaintiff.

Richard T. Lau & Associates, Jericho (Jeremy Maline of counsel), for defendant.

In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, a bench trial commenced and concluded on May 4, 2017. The parties made no pretrial stipulations. Pursuant to the order of the Honorable Steven Z. Mostofsky, dated February 3, 2016, plaintiff “establishe[d] [its] prima facie case” and the amount in dispute is $2,389.76. The order goes on to indicate, “[t]he sole issue for trial shall be whether the verification requests remain[ ] outstanding.” There were no witnesses appearing on behalf of either party.

The court left the record open solely to address the legal issue of which party bears the burden of establishing whether the verification requests remain outstanding. In support, defendant submitted a posttrial memorandum by Jeremy Maline, Esq., dated May 18, 2017, and in reply, plaintiff submitted a posttrial memorandum by Oleg Rybak, Esq., dated May 22, 2017. In brief, plaintiff’s counsel argued that as the issue of outstanding verification is an affirmative defense, it is the defendant’s burden to establish that verification remains outstanding. Defense counsel argued, inter alia, that the order dated February 3, 2016, should be read to indicate that defendant has met its burden of establishing its defense as defendant has proved “timely and proper mailing of the verification requests and mailing of the 120 day denial.”

It is well settled that an insurer may toll the 30-day period to pay or deny a claim by [*2]properly requesting verification within 15 business days from its receipt of the proof of claim form or bill. (11 NYCRR 65-3.5 [b]; Psych. & Massage Therapy Assoc., PLLC v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 5 Misc 3d 723 [Civ Ct, Queens County 2004].) If the

“requested verifications has not been supplied to the insurer 30 calendar days after the original request, the insurer shall, within 10 calendar days, follow up with the party from whom the verification was requested, either by telephone call . . . or by mail. At the same time the insurer shall inform the applicant and such person’s attorney of the reason(s) why the claim is delayed by identifying in{**56 Misc 3d at 683} writing the missing verification and the party from whom it was requested.” (11 NYCRR 65-3.6 [b].)

“A claim need not be paid or denied until all demanded verification is provided.” (New York & Presbyt. Hosp. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 5 AD3d 568, 570 [2d Dept 2004]; Prime Psychological Servs., P.C. v ELRAC, Inc., 25 Misc 3d 1244[A], 2009 NY Slip Op 52579[U] [Civ Ct, Richmond County 2009]; see also Insurance Law § 5106 [a]; 11 NYCRR 65-3.5 [c]; 65-3.8 [a] [1].) As for services rendered on or after April 1, 2013, if the applicant does not provide within 120 calendar days from the date of the initial request either all such verification under the applicant’s control or possession or written proof providing reasonable justification for the failure to comply, the insurer may deny the claim. (11 NYCRR 65-3.5 [o].)

In the court’s view, defendant’s argument that defendant established mailing of the 120-day denial obviates defendant’s burden to demonstrate prima facie that it had not received the requested verification is unpersuasive as the sole issue for trial is whether the verification requests remain outstanding. Defendant generally bears the burden of proving its affirmative defense (Manion v Pan Am. World Airways, 55 NY2d 398 [1982]). Defendant failed to present any witnesses at trial to prove that it, in fact, did not receive any response to its verification requests.

Lastly, defense counsel has not cited any case law that would convince this court to find otherwise. To the extent that defense counsel discusses any outstanding discovery in its memorandum, such issue is not before the court and therefore was not considered.

Based on the foregoing, the court finds that the defendant has failed to meet its burden of establishing its affirmative defense of outstanding verification and as the order of the Honorable Steven Mostofsky found that plaintiff established its prima facie case, the Clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of the plaintiff in the amount of $2,389.76 with applicable statutory attorney’s fees, interest, costs and disbursements.

[*1]

Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County, May 26, 2017

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

Law Offices of Emilia Rutigliano, P.C., Brooklyn (Michael Tsugel of counsel), for plaintiff.

Rivkin Radler, LLP, Uniondale (John J. Vobis Jr. of counsel), for defendant.

In this action by a provider to recover assigned first party no-fault benefits, plaintiff moves for summary judgment arguing that it established its prima facie entitlement to recovery of its unpaid no-fault bills and defendant cross-moves for summary judgment based upon plaintiff’s purported failure to appear for four examinations under oath (EUO).

Plaintiff argues, inter alia, the denials issued in this matter were untimely as defendant’s EUO scheduling letters were untimely. Specifically, defendant’s letter dated May 19, 2015 which rescheduled plaintiff’s missed EUO on May 8, 2015 is late as the regulations require that the follow-up requests be issued within 10 calendar days of the missed EUO date. Lastly, plaintiff contends that the affidavits proffered by defendant are conclusory and insufficient to establish that the EUO scheduling letters and subsequent denials were timely and properly mailed and that defendant’s affiant fails to demonstrate personal knowledge of plaintiff’s nonappearances.

In reply, defendant contends that the mailing of the EUO notice 11 days after the third missed EUO does not negate plaintiff’s obligation to appear based upon 11 NYCRR 65-3.5 (p). Further, defendant contends that its affiant sufficiently established its standard office procedures as to the issuance of the letters and denials at issue and that plaintiff’s nonappearances for the four EUOs were, likewise, adequately demonstrated.

An insurer may toll the 30-day period to pay or deny a claim by properly requesting verification within 15 business days from its receipt of the proof of claim form or bill. (11 NYCRR 65-3.5 [b]; Psych. & Massage Therapy Assoc., PLLC v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 5 Misc 3d 723 [Civ Ct, Queens County 2004].) If the

“requested verification[ ] has not been supplied to the insurer 30 calendar days after the original [receipt], the insurer shall, within 10 calendar days, follow up with the party from whom the verification was requested, either by [a] telephone call . . . or by mail. At the same time the insurer shall inform the applicant and such person’s attorney of the reason(s) why the claim is delayed by identifying in writing the missing verification and the party from whom it was requested.” (11 NYCRR 65-3.6 {**56 Misc 3d at 928}[b].)

“For the purposes of counting the 30 calendar days after proof of claim, wherein the claim becomes overdue pursuant to section 5106 of the Insurance Law, with the exception of section 65-3.6 of this Subpart, any deviation from the rules set out in this section shall reduce the 30 calendar days allowed.” (11 NYCRR 65-3.8 [l].)

Plaintiff also relies upon Presbyterian Hosp. in City of N.Y. v Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. (233 AD2d 431 [2d Dept 1996]), where the Court found that the follow-up requirements for verification requests are to be “strictly construed.” In Presbyterian, the insurer, after not receiving a response to its initial request for additional verification, did not issue a follow-up request and after receiving the requested records three months later, issued a denial shortly thereafter. As such, the 30-day period within which the carrier should have either paid or denied the claim had run “ ’even before verification [was] obtained’, due to the carrier’s ‘lack of diligence in obtaining the verification’ ” (Presbyterian, 233 AD2d at 433, citing Keith v Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 118 AD2d 151, 154 [2d Dept 1986]). In Concourse Chiropractic, PLLC v Fiduciary Ins. Co. of Am. (35 Misc 3d 146[A], 2012 NY Slip Op 51058[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2012]), the court found that the insurer’s follow-up request was untimely when its follow-up request was issued more than a month after the nonappearance at the first scheduled EUO. However, the foregoing cases and their progeny were decided on a set of facts and circumstances prior to the promulgation and application of the fourth amendment of 11 NYCRR subpart 65-3. The fourth amendment of 11 NYCRR subpart 65-3, subdivision 65-3.5 (p) (fourth amendment), was enacted on January 30, 2013 and reads as follows:

“(p) With respect to a verification request and notice, an insurer’s nonsubstantive technical or immaterial defect or omission, as well as an insurer’s failure to comply with a prescribed time frame, shall not negate an applicant’s obligation to comply with the request or notice. This subdivision shall apply to medical services rendered, and to lost earnings and other reasonable and necessary expenses incurred, on or after April 1, 2013.”

There appears to be no higher court analysis of the phrase: “as well as an insurer’s failure to comply with a prescribed time frame, shall not negate an applicant’s obligation to comply{**56 Misc 3d at 929} with the request or notice.” Nonetheless, and comparably, in Pine Hollow Med., P.C. v Global Liberty Ins. Co. of N.Y. (25 Misc 3d 244 [Civ Ct, Kings County 2009]), the court reasoned that “defendant should not be deprived entirely of the opportunity to review and obtain the needed proof by dint of its one-day tardiness in submitting its follow-up request” and that “[i]t would be patently absurd and contravene the meaning of 11 NYCRR 65-3.8 (j) to impose a more draconian punishment on an insurer who is one day late in requesting follow-up verification than on an insurer who is one day late in requesting additional verification” (id. at 250). It would appear that the fourth amendment addresses such deficiency and is in accord with the foregoing opinion. Thus, it is within this framework upon which the court evaluates the matter at hand.

As an initial matter, upon a review of defendant’s proffered affidavit, the court notes that the affidavit of Cerean Edwards lacks the name of the person whom it was sworn printed beneath the signature as required by CPLR 2101 (a). However, CPLR 2101 (f) states:

“(f) Defects in form; waiver. A defect in the form of a paper, if a substantial right of a party is not prejudiced, shall be disregarded by the court, and leave to correct shall be freely given. The party on whom a paper is served shall be deemed to have waived objection to any defect in form unless, within fifteen days after the receipt thereof, the party on whom the paper is served returns the paper to the party serving it with a statement of particular objections.”

To the extent that plaintiff’s counsel did not proffer any objection to the affidavit in its opposition papers and the same does not prejudice a substantial right of plaintiff, the court finds such defect to have been waived (see generally Devonshire Surgical Facility, LLC v Allstate Ins. Co., 38 Misc 3d 127[A], 2012 NY Slip Op 52351[U] [App Term, 1st Dept 2012]; Complete Orthopedic Supplies, Inc. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 23 Misc 3d 5 [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2009]).

As to the facts of this case, defendant contends that upon receipt of the bills at issue, defendant issued an initial demand for EUO scheduled for March 23, 2015.^[FN1] When plaintiff failed to appear, defendant issued a request dated March 26, 2015 for{**56 Misc 3d at 930} EUO on April 14, 2015. Defendant contends that plaintiff failed to appear and thus issued another request dated April 20, 2015 for EUO on May 8, 2015. When plaintiff failed to appear, defendant issued a request dated May 19, 2015 for EUO on June 16, 2015. As plaintiff failed to appear for the fourth time, defendant issued a denial dated June 24, 2015.^[FN2]

In the instant matter, the court finds that defendant submitted sufficient proof in admissible form to demonstrate that the EUO scheduling letters were properly and timely mailed. Upon review of the affidavit of Cerean Edwards, defendant’s claims associate, the court finds that defendant, through its standard office policies and procedures, has established the timely and proper mailing of its letters scheduling plaintiff’s EUO and the denials at issue (see St. Vincent’s Hosp. of Richmond v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 50 AD3d 1123 [2d Dept 2008]; Flushing Traditional Acupuncture, P.C. v GEICO Ins. Co., 36 Misc 3d 156[A], 2012 NY Slip Op 51767[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2012]; Hollis Med. Servs., P.C. v GEICO Ins. Co., 36 Misc 3d 156[A], 2012 NY Slip Op 51768[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2012]). Defendant also proffered the affirmation of Ryan Goldberg, Esq., who affirmed that he was present in the office to conduct the examination under oath of plaintiff on March 23, 2015, April 14, 2015, May 8, 2015 and June 16, 2015 and that plaintiff failed to appear for the same. The court finds that the affirmation sufficiently demonstrated plaintiff’s nonappearances (see Olmeur Med., P.C. v Nationwide Gen. Ins. Co., 41 Misc 3d 143[A], 2013 NY Slip Op 52031[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2013]).

Thus, in this instance, the court finds that the insurer’s one-day tardiness in issuing its follow-up request for the EUO scheduled for June 16, 2015 to be a technical defect excusable under 11 NYCRR 65-3.5 (p). Further, under 11 NYCRR 65-3.5 (p), plaintiff’s obligation to appear for an EUO was not negated{**56 Misc 3d at 931} based upon the one-day tardiness in light of the fact that there were three prior EUOs previously scheduled in a timely manner, where plaintiff failed to appear for all four scheduled EUOs and where plaintiff “failed to allege, much less prove, that it had responded in any way to the EUO requests at issue” (Professional Health Imaging, P.C. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 52 Misc 3d 134[A], 2016 NY Slip Op 51026[U], *1 [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2016]). Similarly, in Infinity Health Prods., Ltd. v Eveready Ins. Co. (67 AD3d 862 [2d Dept 2009]), the Appellate Division, in reversing the Appellate Term’s determination in favor of plaintiff where defendant’s follow-up request for additional verification was sent three days prior to the expiration of a full 30 calendar days as dictated by 11 NYCRR former 65-15 (e) (2) (now 11 NYCRR 65-3.6 [b]), stated the following:

“Indeed, in light of the particular factual circumstances herein, it would be incongruous to conclude that the Insurance regulation regarding follow-up verification, or any other statute or rule, warrants a result which would, in effect, penalize an insurer who diligently attempts to obtain the information necessary to make a determination of a claim, and concomitantly, rewards a plaintiff who makes no attempt to even comply with the insurer’s requests.” (Infinity Health Prods., Ltd. v Eveready Ins. Co., 67 AD3d 862, 865 [2d Dept 2009]; see also Triangle R Inc. v Praetorian Ins. Co., 30 Misc 3d 129[A], 2010 NY Slip Op 52294[U] [App Term, 1st Dept 2010].)

To the extent that this court finds 11 NYCRR 65-3.5 (p) applicable to the unique set of facts and circumstances before it, the court notes that this provision may invariably create additional litigation rather than serving the purpose of the no-fault legislation, which is to encourage expeditious resolution of claims (see New York Hosp. Med. Ctr. of Queens v Motor Veh. Acc. Indem. Corp., 12 AD3d 429, 430 [2004], quoting Dermatossian v New York City Tr. Auth., 67 NY2d 219, 225 [1986]). Thus, even in finding in favor of defendant in this matter, the court notes that such ruling is limited to the facts and circumstances of the instant case.

Therefore, based upon the foregoing, plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is denied. Defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment is granted and plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed.

Footnotes

Footnote 1:The court notes that as to the two bills at issue, both demands were made one to two business days beyond the requisite 15 business days and as such, the number of days beyond 15 business days would only reduce the calendar days allowed for the issuance of a denial pursuant to 11 NYCRR 65-3.8 (l).

Footnote 2:The court notes that the affidavit of defendant’s affiant, Cerean Edwards, contained what appears to be a scrivener’s error in part II, paragraph 10, where Ms. Edwards states that plaintiff did not appear for the EUO on April 14, 2015. When read in whole, the date denoted by Ms. Edwards does not appear to be correct. However, the same is without any consequence as only an attorney affirmation adequately demonstrates plaintiff’s nonappearances for the scheduled EUOs.

Law Office of Jason Tenenbaum, P.C. (Jason Tenenbaum, Esq.), for appellant. Fazio, Rynsky & Associates, LLP (Svetlana Sobel, Esq.), for respondent.

Appeal from an order of the District Court of Suffolk County, Third District (C. Stephen Hackeling, J.), dated February 11, 2016. The order denied defendant’s motion to vacate a default judgment.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs.

After defendant failed to answer or appear in this action to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, plaintiff moved for leave to enter a default judgment. By order dated March 13, 2015, the District Court (C. Stephen Hackeling, J.) granted plaintiff’s motion on default. On March 26, 2015, plaintiff served a judgment with notice of settlement on defendant, and a judgment in the principal sum of $2,898.20 was entered on May 22, 2015. On July 13, 2015, defendant moved to vacate the default judgment. Plaintiff opposed the motion. By order dated February 11, 2016, the District Court (C. Stephen Hackeling, J.) denied defendant’s motion.

A defendant seeking to vacate a default in appearing or answering based on excusable default must demonstrate both a reasonable excuse for the default and the existence of a potentially meritorious defense to the action (see CPLR 5015 [a] [1]; Eugene Di Lorenzo, Inc. v A.C. Dutton Lbr. Co., 67 NY2d 138, 141 [1986]). Here, defendant proffered an affidavit by its [*2]claims examiner, who merely stated that he was supposed to forward the summons and complaint to defense counsel, but did not, and “it was a mistake.” The claims examiner explained defendant’s default in opposing plaintiff’s motion for leave to enter a default judgment by stating that plaintiff’s motion had not been scanned into defendant’s file system until the date the motion was returnable, and that it was forwarded to defense counsel the following day. Under the circumstances presented, we find that defendant failed to establish a reasonable excuse for its default (see Herrera v MTA Bus Co., 100 AD3d 962 [2012]). Consequently, it is unnecessary to determine whether defendant demonstrated the existence of a potentially meritorious defense to the action (see Diederich v Wetzel, 112 AD3d 883 [2013]; Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Cervini, 84 AD3d 789 [2011]).

Accordingly, the order is affirmed.

Marano, P.J., and Iannacci, J., concur.

Garguilo, J., taking no part.

Gabriel & Shapiro, LLC (Jason Moroff, Esq.), for appellant. Thomas Torto, Esq., for respondent.

Appeal from an order of the District Court of Suffolk County, Third District

(C. Stephen Hackeling, J.), dated June 18, 2015. The order granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

ORDERED that the order is reversed, without costs, and defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is denied.

In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, plaintiff appeals from an order of the District Court which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

It is undisputed that all of plaintiff’s claims had been timely denied on the ground that the amounts sought were not in accordance with the workers’ compensation fee schedule. Moreover, the claims for dates of service July 12, 2013 through September 30, 2013 were denied on the additional ground that the services were not medically necessary, based upon an independent medical examination of plaintiff’s assignor by Dr. LoCascio, defendant’s licensed acupuncturist, which had been performed on June 24, 2013.

With respect to the branch of defendant’s motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the amounts sought were not in accordance with the workers’ compensation fee schedule, we find that defendant did not establish its prima facie entitlement to summary judgment, as it failed to provide an expert’s affidavit to explain its interpretation of the fee schedule at issue (see Kingsbrook Jewish Med. Ctr. v Allstate Ins. Co., 61 AD3d 13 [2009]; W.H.O. Acupuncture, P.C. v Progressive Preferred Ins. Co., 36 Misc 3d 133[A], 2012 NY Slip Op 51335[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2012]).

With respect to the branches of defendant’s motion seeking summary judgment dismissing plaintiff’s claims for dates of service July 12, 2013 through September 30, 2013 on the ground that the services were not medically necessary, while defendant, in support of its motion, submitted Dr. LoCascio’s sworn report, which set forth a factual basis and medical rationale for his conclusion that there was a lack of medical necessity for further treatment, plaintiff, in opposition to the motion, submitted an affirmation by Dr. Vatelman, the licensed acupuncturist who had treated the assignor, which meaningfully referred to and sufficiently rebutted the conclusions set forth in Dr. LoCascio’s report. We note that, contrary to defendant’s argument, the omission of the jurat in Dr. Vatelman’s affirmation is not fatal (People ex rel. 5th Ave. & 37th St. Corp. v Miller, 261 App Div 550, 552 [1941], affd 286 NY 628 [1941]; see also People v Gouiran, 192 AD2d 620 [1993]), particularly in the absence of a showing of substantial prejudice to defendant (see CPLR 2001). We further note that while Dr. Vatelman, as an acupuncturist, was ineligible to submit an affirmation under CPLR 2106 (a), defendant waived any objection on this basis, as it did not raise this issue either in the District Court or on appeal (see Scudera v Mahbubur, 299 AD2d 535 [2002]).

Accordingly, the order is reversed and defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is denied.

Marano, P.J., Iannacci and Garguilo, JJ., concur.

[*1]

Jaffe & Koumourdas, LLP, New York (Jean H. Kang of counsel), for appellant.

Gary Tsirelman, P.C., Brooklyn (Stefan Belinfanti of counsel), for respondent.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Geoffrey D. Wright, J.), entered on or about April 7, 2016, in respondent’s favor, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Petitioner failed to establish any of the grounds for vacating an arbitration award (CPLR 7511 [b], [c]; see generally Azrielant v Azrielant, 301 AD2d 269, 275 [1st Dept 2002], lv denied 99 NY2d 509 [2003]).

Pursuant to Insurance Department Regulations (11 NYCRR) § 65-3.16 (a) (12), “insurance carriers may withhold payment for medical services provided by fraudulently incorporated enterprises to which patients have assigned their claims” (State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v Mallela, 4 NY3d 313, 319 [2005]). Assuming without deciding that an insurer’s defense of fraudulent incorporation cannot be precluded (see AVA Acupuncture, P.C. v AutoOne Ins. Co., 28 Misc 3d 134[A], 2010 NY Slip Op 51350[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2010]; Bath Med. Supply, Inc. v Allstate Indem. Co., 27 Misc 3d 92, 95 [App Term, 2d Dept, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2010]), we conclude that the master arbitrator properly confirmed the award of the arbitrator, who reviewed petitioner’s submissions relating to the plea of guilty to no-fault insurance fraud by a man married to the owner of respondent, found that respondent was not mentioned once in the “hundreds of pages” submitted, and rejected petitioner’s attempt to hold the owner “responsible by association.” Petitioner’s reliance on a subsequent arbitration (in 2014) is also misplaced; among other things, the later arbitration appears to have relied on documentation that was not submitted to the arbitrator in this case.

Contrary to petitioner’s contention, there was no default in this case. In any event, any delay in opposing the petition to vacate the arbitration award was short and quickly corrected, and the explanation given for it—law office failure—was detailed and specific, and, in view of the strong public policy favoring resolution of litigation on the merits, constituted “good cause” for the delay (see Lamar v City of New York, 68 AD3d 449 [1st Dept 2009]).

Respondent is entitled to attorneys’ fees for this appeal (11 NYCRR 65-4.10 [j] [4]), calculated, in accordance with 11 NYCRR 65-4.6 (b), as 20% of the no-fault benefits awarded. Concur—Acosta, P.J., Renwick, Mazzarelli, Andrias and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

Law Offices of James F. Sullivan, P.C. (Giovanna Tuttolomondo, Esq.), for appellant. Law Offices of Melissa Betancourt, P.C. (Melissa Betancourt, Esq.), for respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Katherine A. Levine, J.), entered May 12, 2015. The order denied defendant’s motion to vacate a default judgment of the same court entered May 27, 2014 upon defendant’s failure to appear or answer the complaint.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with $25 costs.

Plaintiff commenced this action to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits as a result of an accident which had occurred on June 20, 2010. Defendant did not answer the complaint. Thereafter, defendant commenced a declaratory judgment action in the Supreme Court, New York County, which culminated in an order declaring that Allstate Insurance Company was not obligated to provide coverage for claims by plaintiff, among other providers, relating to an accident which had occurred on June 21, 2010. Shortly after defendant served the Supreme Court order on plaintiff and its assignor, among others, plaintiff applied to the Civil Court for leave to enter a default judgment, which the court granted. The default judgment was entered on May 27, 2014.

Defendant moved by order to show cause in the Civil Court to vacate the default judgment, claiming, as an excuse for the default, that it had no record of receiving the summons and complaint, but if defendant had been served, then defendant’s failure to answer the complaint was the result of clerical error and office failure. Defendant asserted, as a potentially meritorious defense, that defendant possessed a founded belief that the collision, which defendant’s claim representative alleged in her affidavit occurred on June 21, 2010, was a staged incident. Plaintiff opposed the motion. Subsequently, defendant presented the Civil Court with the Supreme Court order in the declaratory judgment action. By order entered May 12, 2015, the Civil Court took judicial notice of the Supreme Court order but denied defendant’s motion, finding, among other things, that the Supreme Court order had not been properly served.

In support of its motion to vacate the default judgment, defendant was required to [*2]demonstrate both a reasonable excuse for its default and the existence of a potentially meritorious defense (see CPLR 5015 [a]; Eugene Di Lorenzo, Inc. v A.C. Dutton Lbr. Co., 67 NY2d 138 [1986]; New York Hosp. Med. Ctr. of Queens v Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 120 AD3d 1322, 1323 [2014]). While plaintiff’s complaint in the Civil Court asserted that the accident at issue had occurred on June 20, 2010, defendant’s proffered evidence of a staged accident referred to a June 21, 2010 collision. Consequently, defendant failed to demonstrate that the alleged injuries did not arise out of the June 20, 2010 insured incident (see Central Gen. Hosp. v Chubb Group of Ins. Cos., 90 NY2d 195 [1997]). Similarly, the Supreme Court declared that defendant is not obligated to reimburse plaintiff for claims “relating to the June 21, 2010 accident.” Thus, we cannot find that the order in the declaratory judgment action, which relieves defendant of liability for claims relating to a June 21, 2010 accident, is a conclusive determination barring plaintiff’s recovery in the Civil Court for injuries sustained by its assignor in a June 20, 2010 accident. In the absence of an explanation of the discrepancy in the dates of the accident, defendant failed to demonstrate the existence of a potentially meritorious defense to the action. In view of the foregoing, it is unnecessary to consider whether defendant proffered a reasonable excuse for its default.

Accordingly, the order is affirmed.

Weston, J.P., Solomon and Elliot, JJ., concur.

[*1]

Law Offices of Melissa Betancourt, P.C., Brooklyn, NY (Frank D’Esposito of counsel), for appellants.

McDonnell Adels & Klestzick, PLLC, Garden City, NY (Stuart Flamen of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Jules L. Spodek, J.), dated June 2, 2015. The order, insofar as appealed from, directed that the administrator of the defendant Estate of Ronald L.L. Collins appear for a deposition.

Ordered that on the Court’s own motion, the notice of appeal is deemed to be an application for leave to appeal from so much of the order as directed that the administrator of the defendant Estate of Ronald L.L. Collins appear for a deposition, and leave to appeal is granted (see CPLR 5701 [c]); and it is further,

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs.

The plaintiff insurance company commenced this action against, among others, the defendant Estate of Ronald L.L. Collins, seeking a judgment declaring, inter alia, that the plaintiff has no obligation to pay no-fault claims for medical services purportedly rendered by Collins. In an order dated June 2, 2015, the Supreme Court, inter alia, directed that the administrator of Collins’s estate (hereinafter the administrator) appear for a deposition. The defendants appeal from that portion of the order.

CPLR 3101 (a) (1) provides that “[t]here shall be full disclosure of all matter material and necessary in the prosecution or defense of an action.” The terms “material and necessary” in this statute “must ‘be interpreted liberally to require disclosure, upon request, of any facts bearing on the controversy which will assist preparation for trial by sharpening the issues and reducing delay and prolixity’ ” (Matter of Kapon v Koch, 23 NY3d 32, 38 [2014], quoting Allen v Crowell-Collier Publ. Co., 21 NY2d 403, 406 [1968]; see D’Alessandro v Nassau Health Care Corp., 137 AD3d 1195, 1196 [2016]). “At the same time, a party is ‘not entitled to unlimited, uncontrolled, unfettered disclosure’ ” (D’Alessandro v Nassau Health Care Corp., 137 AD3d at 1196, quoting Geffner v Mercy Med. Ctr., 83 AD3d 998, 998 [2011]). “ ’It is incumbent on the party seeking disclosure to demonstrate that the method of discovery sought will result in the disclosure of relevant evidence or is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of information bearing on the claims’ ” (D’Alessandro v Nassau Health Care Corp., 137 AD3d at 1196, quoting Crazytown Furniture v Brooklyn Union Gas Co., 150 AD2d 420, [*2]421 [1989]). Here, the plaintiff made no showing that conducting the deposition of the administrator will result in the disclosure of relevant evidence or is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of information bearing on the claims (see Black v Budget Rent A Car Corp., 224 AD2d 350 [1996]; Crazytown Furniture v Brooklyn Union Gas Co., 150 AD2d at 421).

The parties’ remaining contentions are without merit.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court improperly directed that the administrator appear for a deposition. Rivera, J.P., Hall, LaSalle and Connolly, JJ., concur.

[*1]

Law Office of Gregory A. Goodman, P.C., Hauppauge (Gregory A. Goodman of counsel), for appellant.

Rubin, Fiorella & Friedman LLP, New York (David F. Boucher, Jr. of counsel), for respondent.

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Shlomo Hagler, J.), entered January 6, 2017, which denied defendant Star of N.Y. Chiropractic Diagnostic, P.C.’s (Star) motion for attorneys fees against plaintiff, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

“It is well settled in New York that a prevailing party may not recover attorneys’ fees from the losing party except where authorized by statute, agreement or court rule” (U.S. Underwriters Ins. Co. v City Club Hotel, LLC, 3 NY3d 592, 597 [2004]; see also Gotham Partners, L.P. v High Riv. Ltd. Partnership, 76 AD3d 203, 205 [1st Dept 2010], lv denied 17 NY3d 713 [2011]). While an insured party may recover attorneys’ fees where it successfully defends against its insurer’s action seeking a declaratory judgment that it has no duty to defend or indemnify its insured (see Underwriters Ins. Co., 3 NY3d at 597; Mighty Midgets v Centennial Ins. Co., 47 NY2d 12, 21 [1979]), “[t]he reasoning behind [the award of such attorneys’ fees] is that an insurer’s duty to defend an insured extends to the defense of any action arising out of the occurrence, including a defense against an insurer’s declaratory judgment action” (Underwriters Ins. Co., 3 NY3d at 597-598). Here, plaintiff owes defendant Star no duty to defend, as Star is merely seeking reimbursement for chiropractic services rendered to the claimant in this no-fault action. While Star was assigned the claimant’s rights for such reimbursement, the claimant was merely the injured party in the taxi at the time of the accident, and plaintiff owed no duty to defend the claimant. Star, as assignee of the claimant’s rights, could acquire no greater rights than its assignor (see New York & Presbyt. Hosp. v Country-Wide Ins. Co., 17 NY3d 586, 592 [2011]), and did not acquire any right to a defense from plaintiff. Thus, the court properly held that Star was not entitled to attorneys’ fees in this case.

[*2] We have examined Star’s remaining arguments, including its public policy argument, and find them to be unavailing. Concur—Sweeny, J.P., Renwick, Andrias, Feinman and Gesmer, JJ.

Decided on May 12, 2017

SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 2d, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS