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

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Lisa S. Ottley, J.), entered October 25, 2011. The order, insofar as appealed from, denied defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and found, in effect, that plaintiff had established, for all purposes in the action, the submission of the bills and the fact and amount of the loss sustained.

ORDERED that the order, insofar as appealed from, is modified by providing that the branch of defendant’s cross motion seeking summary judgment dismissing so much of the complaint as sought to recover upon a claim for supplies furnished on January 2, 2009 is granted to the extent of dismissing so much of the complaint as sought to recover for an “E.M.S.,” “EMS Accessories,” and “EMS Supply;” as so modified, the order, insofar as appealed from, is affirmed, with $25 costs to appellant; and it is further,

ORDERED that on the court’s own motion, Jonathan R. Vitarelli, Esq., Ilona [*2]Finkelshteyn, Esq., and counsel for defendant are directed to show cause why an order should or should not be made and entered imposing such sanctions and costs, if any, against Jonathan R. Vitarelli, Esq., and Ilona Finkelshteyn, Esq., pursuant to Rules of the Chief Administrator (22 NYCRR) § 130-1.1 (c) as this court may deem appropriate, by each filing an affidavit or affirmation on that issue in the office of the Clerk of this court and serving a copy on the others on or before October 4, 2013; and it is further,

ORDERED that the Clerk of this court, or his designee, is directed to serve a copy of this decision and order to show cause by regular mail upon Jonathan R. Vitarelli, Esq., Ilona Finkelshteyn, Esq., and counsel for defendant.

In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, defendant appeals from so much of an order of the Civil Court as denied defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and stated that the only issue for trial was the medical necessity of the supplies at issue (see CPLR 3212 [g]).

Contrary to defendant’s argument on appeal, plaintiff established the submission of the bills and the fact and amount of the loss sustained. We therefore do not disturb the Civil Court’s implicit finding that those facts had been established for all purposes in the action. To the extent that defendant argues that the order improperly found that plaintiff had established, for all purposes in the action, that defendant had issued a claim denial that was conclusory, vague, or without merit as a matter of law, this is an incorrect reading of the order, which directs that a trial be held on the issue of medical necessity.

In support of the branch of its cross motion seeking summary judgment dismissing so much of the complaint as sought to recover for the supplies furnished on August 8, 2008 as well as the back massager and infrared heat lamp furnished on January 2, 2009, defendant submitted sworn peer review reports which set forth a factual basis and medical rationale for the doctors’ determinations that there was a lack of medical necessity for these supplies. In opposition to defendant’s motion, plaintiff submitted an affirmation by a doctor which was sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether these supplies were medically necessary (see Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557 [1980]).

In support of the branch of its cross motion seeking summary judgment dismissing so much of the complaint as sought to recover for the “E.M.S.,” “EMS Accessories,” and “EMS Supply” furnished on January 2, 2009, defendant submitted a peer review report which set forth a factual basis and medical rationale for the doctor’s determination that there was a lack of medical necessity for these supplies on the ground, among others, that the supplies were superfluous, given that the assignor had already been involved in a treatment plan which included physical therapy and rehabilitation, which the peer reviewer stated rendered these supplies unnecessary. In opposition, plaintiff submitted an affirmation by a doctor which failed to meaningfully refer to, let alone rebut, this determination (see Pan Chiropractic, P.C. v Mercury Ins. Co., 24 Misc 3d 136[A], 2009 NY Slip Op 51495[U] [App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2009]). Since plaintiff has not challenged the Civil Court’s finding, in effect, that defendant is otherwise entitled to judgment, the branch of defendant’s cross motion seeking summary judgment dismissing so much of the complaint as sought to recover for the “E.M.S.,” “EMS Accessories,” and “EMS Supply” furnished on January 2, 2009 should have been granted (see Park Slope Med. v Praetorian Ins. Co., 39 Misc 3d 141[A], 2013 NY Slip Op 50761[U] [App Term, 2d, 11th & [*3]13th Jud Dists 2013]; A. Khodadadi Radiology, P.C. v NY Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 16 Misc 3d 131[A], 2007 NY Slip Op 51342[U] [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2007]).

Where a respondent submits an appellate brief, it shall include, pursuant to CPLR 5528, respondent’s appellate argument (see Rules of App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists [22 NYCRR] § 731.2 [a]). Sanctions and costs may be imposed against an attorney or party to the litigation, or both, for engaging in frivolous conduct (Rules of the Chief Administrator [22 NYCRR] § 130-1.1). We note generally that rule 3.3 (f) (2) of the Rules of Professional Conduct (22 NYCRR 1200.0) provides that “[i]n appearing as a lawyer before a tribunal, a lawyer shall not . . . engage in undignified or discourteous conduct” (see also Galasso, Langione & Botter, LLP v Galasso, 89 AD3d 897, 899 [2011]). We further note that rule 5.1 of the Rules of Professional Conduct (22 NYCRR 1200.0) governs the responsibilities of law firms, partners, managers and supervisory lawyers. In the instant case, the brief submitted on respondent’s behalf contained, among other things, pages denominated “Table of Authorities” and “Summary of the Argument” that merely state that these pages were “left blank intentionally.” The “Question Presented” stated only “WHAT’S A BOY TO DO?” The remainder of the respondent’s brief did not address the facts of this case or interpose any specific argument as to why the order from which defendant appealed should be affirmed. Based upon the above, and other statements in the respondent’s brief, we order Jonathan R. Vitarelli, Esq., Ilona Finkelshteyn, Esq., and counsel for defendant, to show cause why an order should or should not be made and entered imposing sanctions and costs, if any, against Jonathan R. Vitarelli, Esq., and Ilona Finkelshteyn, Esq.

Accordingly, the order, insofar as appealed from, is modified by providing that the branch of defendant’s cross motion seeking summary judgment dismissing so much of the complaint as sought to recover upon a claim for supplies furnished on January 2, 2009 is granted to the extent of dismissing so much of the complaint as sought to recover for an “E.M.S.,” “EMS Accessories,” and “EMS Supply” and, on the court’s own motion, Jonathan R. Vitarelli, Esq., Ilona Finkelshteyn, Esq., and counsel for defendant, are directed to show cause why an order should or should not be made and entered imposing such sanctions and costs, if any, against Jonathan R. Vitarelli, Esq., and Ilona Finkelshteyn, Esq., pursuant to Rules of the Chief Administrator (22 NYCRR) § 130-1.1 (c) as this court may deem appropriate, by each filing an affidavit or affirmation on that issue in the office of the Clerk of this court and serving a copy on the others on or before October 4, 2013.

Pesce, P.J., Aliotta and Solomon, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: August 16, 2013

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

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Katherine A. Levine, J.), entered November 21, 2011. The order, insofar as appealed from, denied defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and found, in effect, that plaintiff had established, for all purposes in the action, the submission of the bills and the fact and amount of the loss sustained.

ORDERED that the order, insofar as appealed from, is affirmed, without costs; and it is further,

ORDERED that on the court’s own motion, Jonathan R. Vitarelli, Esq., Ilona Finkelshteyn, Esq., and counsel for defendant are directed to show cause why an order should or should not be made and entered imposing such sanctions and costs, if any, against Jonathan R. Vitarelli, Esq., and Ilona Finkelshteyn, Esq., pursuant to Rules of the Chief Administrator (22 NYCRR) § 130-1.1 (c) as this court may deem appropriate, by each filing an affidavit or affirmation on that issue in the office of the Clerk of this court and serving a copy on the others on or before October 4, 2013; and it is further,

ORDERED that the Clerk of this court, or his designee, is directed to serve a copy of this [*2]decision and order to show cause by regular mail upon Jonathan R. Vitarelli, Esq., Ilona Finkelshteyn, Esq., and counsel for defendant.

In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, defendant appeals from so much of an order of the Civil Court as denied defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and stated that the only issue for trial was the medical necessity of the supplies at issue (see CPLR 3212 [g]).

Contrary to defendant’s argument on appeal, plaintiff established the submission of the bills and the fact and amount of the loss sustained. We therefore do not disturb the Civil Court’s implicit finding that those facts had been established for all purposes in the action. To the extent that defendant argues that the order improperly found that plaintiff had established, for all purposes in the action, that defendant had issued a claim denial that was conclusory, vague, or without merit as a matter of law, this is an
incorrect reading of the order, which directs that a trial be held on the issue of medical necessity.

In support of its cross motion, defendant submitted affirmed peer review reports which set forth a factual basis and medical rationale for the doctors’ determinations that there was a lack of medical necessity for the medical supplies at issue. In opposition to defendant’s cross motion, plaintiff submitted an affirmation by a doctor which was sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether these supplies were medically necessary (see Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557 [1980]).

Where a respondent submits an appellate brief, it shall include, pursuant to CPLR 5528, respondent’s appellate argument (see Rules of App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists [22 NYCRR] § 731.2 [a]). Sanctions and costs may be imposed against an attorney or party to the litigation, or both, for engaging in frivolous conduct (Rules of the Chief Administrator [22 NYCRR] § 130-1.1). We note generally that rule 3.3 (f) (2) of the Rules of Professional Conduct (22 NYCRR 1200.0) provides that “[i]n appearing as a lawyer before a tribunal, a lawyer shall not . . . engage in undignified or discourteous conduct” (see also Galasso, Langione & Botter, LLP v Galasso, 89 AD3d 897, 899 [2011]). We further note that rule 5.1 of the Rules of Professional Conduct (22 NYCRR 1200.0) governs the responsibilities of law firms, partners, managers and supervisory lawyers. In the instant case, the brief submitted on respondent’s behalf contained, among other things, pages denominated “Table of Authorities” and “Summary of the Argument” that merely state that these pages were “left blank intentionally.” The “Question Presented” stated only “WHAT’S A BOY TO DO?” The remainder of the respondent’s brief did not address the facts of this case or interpose any specific argument as to why the order from which defendant appealed should be affirmed. Based upon the above, and other statements in the respondent’s brief, we order Jonathan R. Vitarelli, Esq., Ilona Finkelshteyn, Esq., and counsel for defendant, to show cause why an order should or should not be made and entered imposing sanctions and costs, if any, against Jonathan R. Vitarelli, Esq., and Ilona Finkelshteyn, Esq.

Accordingly, the order, insofar as appealed from, is affirmed, and, on the court’s own motion, Jonathan R. Vitarelli, Esq., Ilona Finkelshteyn, Esq., and counsel for defendant, are directed to show cause why an order should or should not be made and entered imposing such sanctions and costs, if any, against Jonathan R. Vitarelli, Esq., and Ilona Finkelshteyn, Esq., pursuant to Rules of the Chief Administrator (22 NYCRR) § 130-1.1 (c) as this court may deem appropriate, by each filing an affidavit or affirmation on that issue in the office of the Clerk of [*3]this court and serving a copy on the others on or before October 4, 2013.

Pesce, P.J., Aliotta and Solomon, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: August 16, 2013

[*1]

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Department, 2d, 11th and 13th Judicial Districts, August 16, 2013

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

Law Offices of Teresa M. Spina, Woodbury (John Dupuy of counsel), for appellant. Law Office of Ilona Finkelshteyn, Brooklyn (Jonathan R. Vitarelli of counsel), for respondent.

{**41 Misc 3d at 20} OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

Ordered that the order, insofar as appealed from, is modified by providing that the branch of defendant’s cross motion seeking summary judgment dismissing so much of the complaint as sought to recover upon a claim for supplies furnished on December 16, 2008 is granted; as so modified, the order, insofar as appealed from, is affirmed, with $25 costs to appellant; and it is further, ordered that on the court’s own motion, Jonathan R. Vitarelli, Esq., Ilona Finkelshteyn, Esq., and counsel for defendant are directed to show cause why an order should or should not be made and entered imposing such sanctions and costs, if any, against Jonathan R. Vitarelli, Esq., and Ilona Finkelshteyn, Esq., pursuant to Rules of the Chief Administrator of the Courts (22 NYCRR) § 130-1.1 (c) as this court may deem appropriate, by each filing an affidavit or affirmation on that issue in the Office of the Clerk of this court and serving a copy on the others on or before October 4, 2013; and it is further, ordered that the clerk of this court, or his designee, is directed to serve a copy of this decision and order to show cause by regular mail upon Jonathan R. Vitarelli, Esq., Ilona Finkelshteyn, Esq., and counsel for defendant.

In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, defendant appeals from so much of an order of the Civil Court as denied defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and stated that the only issue for trial was the medical necessity of the supplies at issue (see CPLR 3212 [g]).

{**41 Misc 3d at 21}Contrary to defendant’s argument on appeal, plaintiff established the submission of the bills and the fact and amount of the loss sustained. We therefore do not disturb the Civil Court’s implicit finding that those facts had been established for all purposes in the action. To the extent that defendant argues that the order improperly found that plaintiff had established, for all purposes in the action, that defendant had issued a claim denial that was conclusory, vague, or without merit as a matter of law, this is an incorrect reading of the order, which directs that a trial be held on the issue of medical necessity.

In support of the branch of its cross motion seeking summary judgment dismissing so much of the complaint as sought to recover{**41 Misc 3d at 22} upon a claim for supplies furnished on October 23, 2008, defendant submitted a sworn peer review report which set forth a factual basis and medical rationale for the doctor’s determinations that there was a lack of medical necessity for these supplies. In opposition to defendant’s cross motion, plaintiff submitted an affirmation by a doctor which was sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether these supplies were medically necessary (see Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557 [1980]). Consequently, this branch of defendant’s cross motion was properly denied.

In support of the branch of its cross motion seeking summary judgment dismissing so much of the complaint as sought to recover upon a claim for supplies furnished to plaintiff’s assignor on December 16, 2008, defendant submitted a peer review report which set forth a factual basis and medical rationale for the doctor’s determination that there was a lack of medical necessity for these supplies, on the ground, among others, that these supplies were superfluous, given that the assignor had already been involved in a treatment plan which included physical therapy and rehabilitation, which treatment plan, the peer reviewer stated, was sufficient to restore the assignor to the assignor’s pre-accident comfort level. In opposition, plaintiff submitted an affirmation by a doctor which failed to meaningfully refer to, let alone rebut, this determination (see Pan Chiropractic, P.C. v Mercury Ins. Co., 24 Misc 3d 136[A], 2009 NY Slip Op 51495[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2009]). Since plaintiff has not challenged the Civil Court’s finding, in effect, that defendant is otherwise entitled to judgment, the branch of defendant’s cross motion seeking summary judgment dismissing so much of the complaint as sought to recover on a claim for supplies furnished on December 16, 2008 should have been granted (see Park Slope Med. v Praetorian Ins. Co., 39 Misc 3d 141[A], 2013 NY Slip Op 50761[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2013]; A. Khodadadi Radiology, P.C. v N.Y. Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 16 Misc 3d 131[A], 2007 NY Slip Op 51342[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2007]).

Where a respondent submits an appellate brief, it shall include, pursuant to CPLR 5528, respondent’s appellate argument (see Rules of Practice for App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists [22 NYCRR] § 731.2 [a]). Sanctions and costs may be imposed against an attorney or party to the litigation, or both, for engaging in frivolous conduct (Rules of Chief Admin [22 [*2]NYCRR] § 130-1.1). We note generally that rule 3.3 (f) (2) of the Rules of Professional Conduct (22 NYCRR 1200.0) provides that “[i]n appearing as a lawyer before a tribunal, a lawyer shall not . . . engage in undignified or discourteous conduct” (see also Galasso, Langione & Botter, LLP v Galasso, 89 AD3d 897, 899 [2011]). We further note that rule 5.1 of the Rules of Professional Conduct (22 NYCRR 1200.0) governs the responsibilities of law firms, partners, managers and supervisory lawyers. In the instant case, the brief submitted on respondent’s behalf contained, among other things, pages denominated “Table of Authorities” and “Summary of the Argument” that merely state that these pages were “left blank intentionally.” The “Question Presented” stated only “WHAT’S A BOY TO DO?” The remainder of the respondent’s brief did not address the facts of this case or interpose any specific argument as to why the order from which defendant appealed should be affirmed. Based upon the above, and other statements in the respondent’s brief, we order Jonathan R. Vitarelli, Esq., Ilona Finkelshteyn, Esq., and counsel for defendant, to show cause why an order should or should not be made and entered imposing sanctions and costs, if any, against Jonathan R. Vitarelli, Esq., and Ilona Finkelshteyn, Esq.

Accordingly, the order, insofar as appealed from, is modified by providing that the branch of defendant’s cross motion seeking summary judgment dismissing so much of the complaint as sought to recover upon the claim for supplies furnished on December 16, 2008 is granted and, upon the court’s own motion, Jonathan R. Vitarelli, Esq., Ilona Finkelshteyn, Esq., and counsel for defendant, are directed to show cause why an order should or should not be made and entered imposing such sanctions{**41 Misc 3d at 23} and costs, if any, against Jonathan R. Vitarelli, Esq., and Ilona Finkelshteyn, Esq., pursuant to Rules of the Chief Administrator (22 NYCRR) § 130-1.1 (c) as this court may deem appropriate, by each filing an affidavit or affirmation on that issue in the Office of the Clerk of this court and serving a copy on the others on or before October 4, 2013.

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

SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS

Appeal from an order of the District Court of Nassau County, First District (Andrea Phoenix, J.), dated October 24, 2011. The order, insofar as appealed from as limited by the brief, denied the branches of defendant’s motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the fourth and sixth causes of action.

ORDERED that the order, insofar as appealed from, is reversed, without costs, and the branches of defendant’s motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the fourth and sixth causes of action are granted.

In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, defendant, insofar as is relevant to this appeal, moved for summary judgment dismissing the fourth and sixth causes of action on the ground that plaintiff’s assignor had failed to appear for duly scheduled independent medical examinations (IMEs). The District Court found, for all purposes in the action, that the denial of claim forms at issue with respect to plaintiff’s fourth and sixth causes of action had been timely mailed. However, the District Court denied the branches of defendant’s motion seeking to dismiss plaintiff’s fourth and sixth causes of action on the ground that plaintiff [*2]had raised a triable issue of fact.

In support of its motion for summary judgment, defendant submitted an affidavit by the owner of Alternative Consulting and Examinations (ACE), the entity which had scheduled the IMEs involved herein on behalf of defendant. The affidavit established that the IME scheduling letters had been timely mailed in accordance with ACE’s standard office practices and procedures (see St. Vincent’s Hosp. of Richmond v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 50 AD3d 1123 [2008]). Defendant also submitted an affidavit of its examining chiropractor, who stated that plaintiff’s assignor had failed to appear for the duly scheduled IMEs. As the District Court found, for all purposes in the action, that defendant had timely mailed the denials at issue, and as plaintiff does not challenge that finding, defendant established its prima facie entitlement to summary judgment as a matter of law (see Stephen Fogel Psychological, P.C. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 35 AD3d 720 [2006]).

In opposition to the motion, plaintiff “failed to demonstrate that discovery was needed in order to show the existence of a triable issue of fact” (Delta Diagnostic Radiology, P.C. v Interboro Ins. Co., 25 Misc 3d 134[A], 2009 NY Slip Op 52222[U] [App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2009]; see also Corwin v Heart Share Human Servs. of NY, 66 AD3d 814 [2009]). Further, plaintiff submitted only an affirmation of counsel, which failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Since plaintiff’s remaining contention is raised for the first time on appeal and we decline to consider it (see Gulf Ins. Co. v Kanen, 13 AD3d 579 [2004]), defendant is entitled to summary judgment dismissing plaintiff’s fourth and sixth causes of action.

Accordingly, the order, insofar as appealed from, is reversed, and the branches of defendant’s motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the fourth and sixth causes of action are granted.

Nicolai, P.J., LaSalle and Tolbert, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: August 08, 2013

SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS

Appeal from an order of the District Court of Nassau County, First District (Fred J. Hirsh, J.), dated December 20, 2011. The order denied plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment on the third cause of action.

ORDERED that so much of the appeal as is by plaintiff Westchester Medical Center as assignee of Earlyn Roberts, and by plaintiff The New York and Presbyterian Hospital as assignee of Mordechai Neustadt, is dismissed, as those plaintiffs are not aggrieved by the order appealed from (see CPLR 5511); and it is further,

ORDERED that the order, insofar as appealed from by plaintiff The New York Hospital Medical Center of Queens as assignee of Rayal Belle, is affirmed, without costs.

In this action by providers to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, the District [*2]Court properly denied the branch of plaintiffs’ motion seeking summary judgment in favor of plaintiff The New York Hospital Medical Center of Queens on the ground that said plaintiff had not demonstrated its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see NYU Hosp. for Joint Diseases v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 38 Misc 3d 41 [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2012]; New York Hosp. Med. Ctr. of Queens v Statewide Ins. Co., 33 Misc 3d 130[A], 2011 NY Slip Op 51863[U] [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2011]).

Accordingly, the order, insofar as appealed from by plaintiff The New York Hospital Medical Center of Queens as assignee of Rayal Belle, is affirmed.

Nicolai, P.J., LaSalle and Tolbert, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: August 08, 2013

SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, FIRST DEPARTMENT

Plaintiff appeals from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County (Elizabeth A. Taylor, J.), dated November 23, 2010, which denied its motion to dismiss plaintiff’s action as time-barred.

Per Curiam.

Order (Elizabeth A. Taylor, J.), dated November 23, 2010, reversed, without costs, motion granted and complaint dismissed. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.

Even accepting plaintiff’s allegations as true, and according them the benefit of every favorable inference, as required on a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(5) (see Island ADC, Inc., 49 AD3d 815 [2008]), we conclude that this action for assigned first-party no-fault benefits is time-barred. The complaint alleges that “health services” were rendered to the assignor on January 9, 2003, that a bill for such services was “timely received” by defendant insurer, and that defendant failed to properly deny the bill within 30 days or request additional verification. Inasmuch as plaintiff was required to submit the proof of claim no later than 45 days after the services were rendered (see 11 NYCRR 65-1.1[d]; New York & Presbyt. Hosp. v Country-Wide Ins. Co., 17 NY3d 586, 589-590 [2011]), and the claim accrued 30 days thereafter (see Matter of Travelers Indem. Co. of Conn. v Glenwood Med., P.C., 48 AD3d 319 [2008]), this action, commenced on September 18, 2009, is barred by the governing six-year statute of limitations (id; Flatlands Acupuncture, P.C. v Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co., 32 Misc 3d 17 [2011]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.
Decision Date: July 19, 2013

Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County

47305/2011

Attorney Information:

Bruno, Gerbino & Soriano, LLP (Attorney for Defendant)

445 Broad Hollow Road, Suite 220

Melville, New York 11747

Law Offices of Emilia Rutigliano, P.C. (Attorney for Plaintiff)

1733 Sheepshead Bay Road, Suite 11

Brooklyn, New York 11235

Ingrid Joseph, J.

Part 41

Index No.: 47305/2011

Motion Cal. No.: 103/104

DECISION/ORDER

Recitation, as required by CPLR §2219 (a), of the papers

considered in the review of this Motion

PapersNumbered

Notice of Motion and Affidavits Annexed .1 – 2

Cross Motion and Affidavits Annexed,……………3-4

Answering Affidavit ……………………………………..5

Replying Affidavits …….. 6In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no fault benefits, the plaintiff seeks summary judgment, and the defendant cross moves for the same relief.

Plaintiff claims that it provided medical services to assignor, Joseph Howe (“Mr. Howe”), for injuries that he sustained as a result of a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 11/07/09. The plaintiff established by proof in admissible form that it sent bills to the defendant for dates of service 12/09/09 to 1/06/10 ($718.17); 1/07/10 to 2/02/10 ($743.60); 2/05/10 to 3/02/10 ($743.60); and 7/06/10 to 8/14/10 ($1460.00) and that the total amount owed ($3665.98) remains outstanding. [*2]

The defendant, a Massachusetts-based insurance company, acknowledges receiving the bills and established that it sent a delay letter to plaintiff on 11/19/09 in response to the first bill for date of service 12-09/09 to 1/06/10 in the amount of $718.17. The delay letter states that the request for payment can not be satisfied due to a pending investigation into a potential policy violation. There is no evidence that the defendant sent a denial of claim form for the first bill after completing its investigation. However, the defendant demonstrated that it sent denials for the remaining bills on 2/16/10, 3/22/10, and 8/30/10, respectively. The defendant noted on each NF-10 form that the claims were denied due to plaintiff’s assignor’s non-cooperation based on his failure to provide documents to establish that he resides in Massachusetts. The defendant cross moves summary judgment dismissing the action on that ground.

At the outset, the court notes that the applicable Massachusetts laws conflict with New York No-Fault law. The analysis used in resolving choice of law issues in this context is the “grouping of contacts” or “center of gravity” approach (Babcock v Jackson, 12 NY2d 473 [1963]). This approach accommodates the competing interests in tort cases with multi-state contacts by giving controlling effect to the law of the jurisdiction based on the relationship or contact with the occurrence, or where the parties have the greatest concern with the specific issue raised in the litigation (id.). Upon application of this analysis, the court finds that the dispositive factors weigh in favor of applying Massachusetts law. The motor vehicle accident giving rise to this dispute occurred at the intersection of Pitkin Avenue and Hendrix Street in Brooklyn, New York. However, the insurance contract was entered into and written in Massachusetts. The defendant is a domiciliary of Massachusetts and maintains its principal place of business in that state. Additionally, Mr. Howe had a Massachusetts license, purported to have a Massachusetts address, and the vehicles (Toyota and Lexus) covered under the policy were registered in Massachusetts .

In order to avoid coverage based upon non-cooperation by an insured, the insurer bears the burden of proving (1) a substantial and material breach of the duty to cooperate; (2) actual prejudice to the insurer’s interest due to the lack of cooperation, i.e., serious impairment of the insurer’s investigation or defense of the action; and (3) the insurer’s exercise of diligence and good faith in obtaining the insured’s cooperation (Darcy v Hartford Ins. Co., 407 Mass. 481, 488-491 [1990]). Even when these elements are met, the insurer will be obligated to provide coverage if the insured (or the party standing in the shoes of the insured) is able to prove that the insurer waived its right to assert the policy breach as a ground for denying liability (Rose v Regan, 344 Mass. 223, 229 [1962]; Merrimack Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v Nonaka, 414 Mass. 189, 190 [1993]). Waiver may be inferred from the circumstances when an insurer has exercised dominion over a case, which made a significant and irrevocable change in the insured’s position, without issuing a timely and effective reservation of rights and disclaimer letter (DiMarzo v American Mut. Ins. Co., 389 Mass. 85, 99-100 [1983]). [*3]

Here, the defendant’s underwriter, Ania Cryan, stated in her affidavit that Mr. Howe represented at the time the policy was issued that he resided at L3 Franklin Square, Randolph, Massachusetts (“Massachusetts address”). Ms. Cryan indicated that the defendant would not have issued the insurance policy had it known that Mr. Howe resided in New York and not in Massachusetts. The defendant’s claims adjuster, Melissa Thompson, also stated in her affidavit that the defendant was under the impression that Mr. Howe resided at the Massachusetts address. Ms. Thompson asserted that the defendant became suspicious, because the NF-2 application indicates that Mr. Howe’s address is 126-39 146th Street, Jamaica, New York (“Jamaica, Queens address”). Ms. Thompson did not set forth the defendant’s procedures when receiving NF-2 forms, but the dates on Mr. Howe’s NF-2 form appears to contradict Ms. Thompson’s assertions. The NF-2 is dated 11/13/09 and bears a received stamp of 11/18/09, and the reservation of rights letter was sent on 11/13/09 to the Jamaica, Queens address. Based on these dates, it appears that the defendant sent the reservation of rights letter to Mr. Howe’s Jamaica, Queens address before receiving the NF-2 application. The defendant has also failed to proffer any evidence that it sent the letter to the Massachusetts address, which is the address of record on the insurance policy according to Ms. Thompson. The court is unable to ascertain when the defendant first became aware of a potential discrepancy with Mr. Howe’s residency so as to disclaim coverage on that ground. This is relevant because under Massachusetts law, the defendant could be potentially barred from disclaiming coverage on estoppel grounds, or if waiver applies (Sweeney v Frew, 318 Mass. 595 [1945]). Waiver of a policy defense can be inferred from an insurer’s actions, and, in the court’s view, accepting premium payments from an insured when the insurer is aware of a potential policy violation or discrepancy with an insured’s purported residence may estop the defendant from availing itself of the lack of coverage defense.

There is also a question as to the effectiveness of the letter that was sent to Mr. Howe. The letter indicates that the defendant is reserving its right to disclaim and to assert a defense of no coverage based upon its contention that it may have been provided with false, deceptive, misleading or incomplete information regarding the garaging of Mr. Howe’s vehicles. The letter outlines provision 18 under the policy, which states, in pertinent part,

“After an accident or loss, you or anyone else covered under this policy must cooperate with us in the investigation, settlement and defense of any claim or lawsuit. We must be sent copies of all legal documents in connection with the accident or loss.

Failure to cooperate with us may result in the denial of the claim.”

The letter states that the defendant will need to obtain a recorded statement from Mr. Howe in reference to the garaging of his vehicles, and it states that Mr. Howe will need to provide [*4]documents showing that he resides in Massachusetts. After receiving reports from two investigators and a recorded statement from Mr. Howe, the defendant did not disclaim its obligation under the subject insurance policy based upon false, deceptive, misleading or incomplete information regarding the garaging of Mr. Howe’s vehicles. Instead, the defendant disclaimed its obligations under the policy based upon its contention that Mr. Howe’s did not submit the requested documentation and therefore, failed to cooperate with its investigation.

The defendant’s contention that Mr. Howe failed to cooperate when applied to Massachusetts law regarding the waiver of defenses, raises several issues. First, there is no showing that Mr. Howe received the reservation of rights letter. The defendant failed to annex actual proof of mailing or provide an affidavit of an individual with personal knowledge to establish the practices and procedures that were in place at the time to ensure that such letters are sent. Ms. Thompson’s conclusory statement that she mailed the letter to Mr. Howe is insufficient. Second, before receiving the NF-2 application or completed reports from its investigators, the defendant sent the letter to the Jamaica, Queens address only and not to the address of record on the insurance policy. Third, there is a notation in the letter that the defendant enclosed a self-addressed, stamped envelope for Mr. Howe to return acknowledgment of receipt of the letter. The defendant’s claims adjuster, Ms. Thompson, failed to address whether a signed acknowledgment of receipt was received from Mr. Howe. Lastly, there is no showing that a reservation of rights or disclaimer letter was sent to the plaintiff, who stands in the shoes of Mr. Howe.

Assuming arguendo that Mr. Howe received the reservation of rights letter, there is no showing that the defendant exercised diligence and good faith in obtaining Mr. Howe’s cooperation. The letter is vague and ambiguous as to the type of documentation required, and there is no evidence that a more detailed, follow up letter was sent to Mr. Howe before disclaiming coverage. Furthermore, the defendant has failed to demonstrate that Mr. Howe’s alleged failure to submit documentation as to his proof of residency constituted a substantial and material breach of the duty to cooperate. The defendant received detailed reports from both investigators and Mr. Howe submitted to an in person, recorded interview with one of the investigators, Timothy Cunningham, on 11/20/09. When asked by Mr. Cunningham for his current address, Mr. Howe responded that he resides at L3 Franklin Square Condo, Randolph, Mass., 02368 . Mr. Howe presented the investigator with a Massachusetts driver license but provided a New York area code phone number. Mr. Howe claimed that he worked full time at American Airlines (JFK Airport location) over a seventeen year period before retiring in April 2009. Mr. Howe indicated that he stayed at the Jamaica, Queens address, his mother’s home, when he was working. He claimed that he did not pay rent at that address but stated that the Direct TV bill was in his name. Mr. Howe also stated that he did not pay rent or utilities at the Massachusetts address, and he acknowledged that he did not own that property. Mr. Howe told the investigator that he sometimes stays at the [*5]Massachusetts address and at his daughter’s house, located at Herman Street in Roxbury, Massachusetts.

Additionally, the defendant has not established that it has or will suffer prejudice or serious impairment due to Mr. Howe’s alleged failure to produce documentation. Mr. Cunningham investigated Mr. Howe’s New York address, and the other investigator, Robert DiMare, investigated the Massachusetts address. In addition to the results of the in person interview with Mr. Howe, Mr. Cunningham reported that a search using Mr. Howe’s social security number connected him to the Jamaica, Queens address from 1993 through November 2009. Mr. Cunningham also located Mr. Howe’s bankruptcy filing from May 2005, which revealed that Mr. Howe used the Jamaica, Queens address at that time. Mr. Cunningham also indicated that a search with the New York Department of Motor Vehicles showed that Mr. Howe had a New York driver’s license that expired in 1981 . He also reported that Mr. Howe has received tickets for disobeying traffic devices in Brooklyn, New York on 4/13/09 and 2/02/07 as well as a parking ticket in New York City on 5/20/09. Mr. Cunningham reported further that he found a telephone listing for “Joseph N. Howe” at the Jamaica, Queens address on the Whitepages.com website. According to Mr. Cunningham, one of the neighbors near the Jamaica, Queens address indicated that Mr. Howe has resided there for several years. Mr. Cunningham reported that he observed both of the vehicles covered under the subject policy (a Toyota and Lexus) parked on a street by the Jamaica, Queens address, and he noted that the Lexus had extensive front end damage.

Mr. DiMare reported that he found no records relating to Mr. Howe at the Randolph Town Hall, Registrar of Voters Office, or Assessor’s Office. He also indicated that he found nothing identifiable with Mr. Howe at the Massachusetts address after reviewing available telephone company records for that area. Mr. DiMare questioned the residents of attached townhouses to the L3 Franklin address and none were familiar with or had knowledge of Mr. Howe. Mr. DiMare interviewed Wendy Jillian of Brooks Management Company, which oversees the operation of the townhouse complex. Ms. Jillian confirmed that the property is owned by another individual and that Mr. Howe is not listed as the current or former owner. Mr. DiMare reported that he conducted a series of spot checks during the evening hours of 11/16/09 and that he did not observe either of the insured’s vehicles parked in close proximity to the Massachusetts address.

Essentially, both investigators concluded in reports that were provided to the defendant (on 11/23/09 and 12/04/09) that Mr. Howe resides primarily in New York. Despite receiving the reports and a transcript of Mr. Howe’s interview, the defendant disclaimed its obligation under the subject policy on the ground that Mr. Howe failed to cooperate by not submitting documentation. However, there is no showing that Mr. Howe’s alleged failure to provide documentation was material and substantial, or that it impaired the defendant’s investigation concerning this matter.

The defendant has submitted sufficient information to rebut plaintiff’s prima facie [*6]showing regarding the outstanding bills but has failed to establish its defense of lack of cooperation based upon Mr. Howe’s failure to remit documentation. The court is cognizant that Massachusetts courts have held that furnishing information known to be false and of a material nature before or at trial is a ground for disclaiming coverage based on an insured’s non-cooperation (Williams v Travelers Ins. Co., 330 Mass. 476, 479 [1953]; Jertson v Hartley, 342 Mass. 597, 602 [1961] and see Mello v Hingham Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 421 Mass. 333 [1995][duty to cooperate a condition precedent to affixing liability]). However, the defendant has not raised that defense, and, even if it had, there are questions of fact as to whether the defendant waived its right to disclaim on that ground. Waiver may apply if the defendant is estopped from disclaiming coverage on equitable grounds, and there is an issue as to the

effectiveness, or lack thereof, of the reservation of rights and disclaimer letters that were sent in this case.

Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion and the defendant’s cross motion are denied.

This constitutes the decision and order of the court.

July 17, 2013____________________________

Hon. Ingrid Joseph

Acting Supreme Court Justice

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

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Devin P. Cohen, J.), entered July 25, 2011. The order, insofar as appealed from as limited by the brief, denied the branch of defendant’s motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as it asserted claims by plaintiff as assignee of Curtis Kanhai, and implicitly found that plaintiff had established its prima facie case.

ORDERED that the order, insofar as appealed from, is modified by striking the provision implicitly finding that plaintiff had established its prima facie case; as so modified, the order, insofar as appealed from, is affirmed, without costs.

As relevant to this appeal, in this action by a provider to recover assigned first- party no-fault benefits, defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as it asserted claims by plaintiff as assignee of Curtis Kanhai. Defendant’s submissions indicated that Kanhai had failed to appear for scheduled independent medical examinations (IMEs) and, with [*2]regard to two of plaintiff’s claims, in the sums of $465.53 and $560.17, respectively, that these claims were premature since plaintiff had failed to provide requested documentary verification. Plaintiff opposed defendant’s motion, arguing that the IME doctor’s affidavit, which defendant had submitted in support of its IME nonappearance defense, was incomplete and unsigned, and cross-moved for summary judgment. Subsequently, defendant served what it denominated an amended motion for summary judgment, which included the IME doctor’s complete affidavit. Plaintiff submitted opposition thereto. The Civil Court deemed defendant’s amended motion to be its reply papers. The Civil Court found that plaintiff and defendant had established their prima facie cases and that the sole issues to be determined at trial were “proper notice of the IME, medical necessity and fee schedule.” Defendant appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of the order as denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as it asserted claims by plaintiff as assignee of Curtis Kanhai, and implicitly found that plaintiff had established its prima facie case.

In our opinion, the Civil Court properly considered defendant’s amended motion to be a reply since the substance of defendant’s papers was unchanged and the papers merely corrected a technical defect in the affidavit of defendant’s IME doctor (see CPLR 2001). Furthermore, plaintiff submitted a response to defendant’s reply papers (see Zernitsky v Shurka, 94 AD3d 875 [2012]; Hoffman v Kessler, 28 AD3d 718 [2006]).

With respect to the merits of defendant’s motion, we find that defendant failed to meet its burden of establishing that plaintiff’s assignor had not appeared for scheduled IMEs (see Stephen Fogel Psychological, P.C. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 35 AD3d 720 [2006]) since there was a discrepancy in the recitation by the IME doctor of the address at which the assignor was to have been examined. The record also shows that defendant failed to establish that plaintiff’s claims in the amounts of $465.53 and $560.17 for services provided to assignor Kanhai were premature. A review of defendant’s letters to plaintiff reveals that the letters merely notified plaintiff that defendant was delaying consideration of the claims pending investigation into the motor vehicle accident at issue. As a result, these delay letters did not toll the statutory time period within which defendant was required to pay or deny those claims (see Nyack Hosp. v Encompass Ins. Co., 23 AD3d 535 [2005]; Parsons Med. Supply, Inc. v Progressive Northeastern Ins. Co., 36 Misc 3d 148[A], 2012 NY Slip Op 51649[U] [App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2012]). Consequently, defendant failed to establish entitlement to summary judgment dismissing so much of the complaint as sought to recover upon claims assigned to plaintiff by Curtis Kanhai.

Contrary to the implicit determination of the Civil Court, the record shows that plaintiff did not establish its prima facie case (see CPLR 4518; Art of Healing Medicine, P.C. v Travelers Home & Mar. Ins. Co., 55 AD3d 644 [2008]; Dan Med., P.C. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 14 Misc 3d 44 [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2006]; see also Westchester Med. Ctr. v Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 78 AD3d 1168 [2010]).

Accordingly, the order, insofar as appealed from, is modified by striking the provision implicitly finding that plaintiff established its prima facie case.

Pesce, P.J., Weston and Rios, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: July 12, 2013

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

Appeal from a judgment of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Helen C. Sturm, J.H.O.), entered July 26, 2011. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, dismissed the complaint.

ORDERED that the judgment is reversed, with $30 costs, and the matter is remitted to the Civil Court for the entry of a judgment in favor of plaintiff in the principal sum of $918.75, plus statutory interest and attorney’s fees.

In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, the parties stipulated that the sole issue for a nonjury trial was whether plaintiff’s assignor had failed to appear for scheduled independent medical examinations (IMEs). Following the trial, the Civil Court found that defendant had established that it had mailed IME notices and that the assignor had failed to appear for the examinations, and that plaintiff had failed to rebut defendant’s showing. Plaintiff appeals from the judgment dismissing the complaint.

Defendant’s sole witness at trial was the scheduling supervisor for Empire Stat, an independent company which, the witness explained, scheduled IMEs and mailed IME notices for [*2]defendant. The witness testified that, based upon his review of the file, he had determined that plaintiff’s assignor had not appeared for two scheduled IMEs. Plaintiff correctly argues that defendant failed to submit evidence from a person with personal knowledge of the alleged nonappearances (see Stephen Fogel Psychological, P.C. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 35 AD3d 720 [2006]). Consequently, since defendant did not meet its burden at trial, judgment should have been awarded in favor of plaintiff.

Accordingly, the matter is remitted to the Civil Court for the entry of judgment in favor of plaintiff in the principal sum of $918.75, plus statutory interest and attorney’s fees due pursuant to Insurance Law § 5106 (a) and the regulations promulgated thereunder.

Aliotta, J.P., Pesce and Rios, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: July 12, 2013

[*1]

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Department, 2d, 11th and 13th Judicial Districts, July 12, 2013

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

Law Office of Alden Banniettis, Brooklyn (Jeff Henle of counsel), for appellant. Law Office of Teresa M. Spina, Woodbury (Peter J. Molesso of counsel), for respondent.

{**43 Misc 3d at 28} OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

Ordered that, on the court’s own motion, the notice of appeal from the decision dated December 10, 2010 is deemed a premature notice of appeal from the judgment entered February 16, 2011 (see CPLR 5520 [c]); and it is further, ordered that the judgment is reversed, with $30 costs, the complaint is reinstated, and the matter is remitted to the Civil Court for a new trial.

In a nonjury trial of this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, the Civil Court denied plaintiff’s motions to admit into evidence, among other things, plaintiff’s assignment of benefits form, document delivery receipt, and claim form. Defendant presented no witnesses. Plaintiff appeals from a written decision after trial in which the court found for defendant. A judgment was subsequently entered, from which we deem the appeal to have been taken (CPLR 5520 [c]). On appeal, plaintiff contends, among other things, that it had laid a proper foundation for the admission into evidence of its assignment of benefits form, [*2]delivery receipt and claim form. We agree.

At the outset, we note that plaintiff was not required to lay a CPLR 4518 (a) foundation for the assignment of benefits form. An assignment of benefits is not hearsay; like a contract, it has independent legal significance and need only be authenticated to be admissible (see Kepner-Tregoe, Inc. v Leadership Software, Inc., 12 F3d 527, 540 [5th Cir 1994]; see also Beal-Medea Prods., Inc. v NY Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 36 Misc 3d{**43 Misc 3d at 29} 135[A], 2012 NY Slip Op 51347[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2012]). However, plaintiff was attempting to use the delivery receipt and claim form to prove the transactions recorded therein, and so was required to lay a CPLR 4518 (a) foundation for those records.

“The essence of the business records exception to the hearsay rule is that records systematically made for the conduct of a business as a business are inherently highly trustworthy because they are routine reflections of day-to-day operations and because the entrant’s obligation is to have them truthful and accurate for purposes of the conduct of the enterprise” (People v Kennedy, 68 NY2d 569, 579 [1986]).

If a record is made in the regular course of business, it is the regular course of business to make the record, and the record is made at or about the time of the event being recorded, the record can be admitted into evidence pursuant to the CPLR 4518 (a) business records hearsay exception.

A review of the evidence adduced at trial shows that plaintiff’s witness was employed by plaintiff prior to, during, and after the time that plaintiff had provided the supplies to its assignor. The witness testified he and another person who was no longer employed by plaintiff had generated all of plaintiff’s claim forms, and that his father, who was the owner of plaintiff, had generated the delivery receipts. The witness also testified, albeit inartfully, that he was familiar with plaintiff’s office routine and that plaintiff’s delivery receipts and claim forms were routinely and contemporaneously made in the course of plaintiff’s business, and that it is plaintiff’s regular business practice to make such records. The Civil Court sustained defendant’s objection to the admission of the foregoing documents into evidence on the ground that the witness was not a proper person to lay a foundation for their admission.

It is not necessary to call the person who actually made a record in order to establish a proper foundation for its admission into evidence pursuant to the business record exception of CPLR 4518 (a). As plaintiff’s witness was an employee who was familiar with plaintiff’s office routine, it was proper for him to testify that the aforementioned records had been contemporaneously and routinely made in the course of plaintiff’s business and that it is plaintiff’s regular business practice to make such records (see People v Kennedy, 68 NY2d at 579). In addition, CPLR 4518 (a) provides that a witness’s lack of personal knowledge affects{**43 Misc 3d at 30} the weight of the record, not the admissibility of the record. Inasmuch as the witness had satisfied the foundational requirements of CPLR 4518 (a), plaintiff’s exhibits 1 and 2 should have been admitted into evidence.

Accordingly, the judgment is reversed, the complaint is reinstated, and the matter is remitted to the Civil Court for a new trial.

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