SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

APPELLATE TERM: 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS

Appeal from an order of the District Court of Nassau County, Third District (Rhonda E. Fischer, J.), entered April 14, 2008. The order denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment.

Order affirmed without costs.

In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, plaintiff moved for summary judgment. Defendant opposed plaintiff’s motion, arguing that it had a founded belief that the subject incident was a staged loss. District Court denied plaintiff’s motion, finding that plaintiff failed to prove its prima facie entitlement to summary judgment because, inter alia, the supporting affidavit did not lay a proper foundation for the admissibility of plaintiff’s business records. The instant appeal by plaintiff ensued.

Plaintiff established its prima facie entitlement to summary judgment by proving submission of statutory claim forms, setting forth the fact and the amount of the loss sustained, and that payment of no-fault benefits was overdue (see Insurance Law § 5106 [a]; Mary Immaculate Hosp. v Allstate Ins. Co., 5 AD3d 742 [2004]). We note that the affidavit submitted by plaintiff established that the annexed claim forms constituted evidence in admissible form (see CPLR 4518; Fortune Med., P.C. v Allstate Ins. Co., 14 Misc 3d 136[A], 2007 NY Slip Op 50243[U] [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2007]; Dan Med., P.C. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 14 Misc 3d 44 [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2006]).

In opposition to plaintiff’s motion, defendant asserted that the alleged injuries did not arise out of an insured incident (see Central Gen. Hosp. v Chubb Group of Ins. Cos., 90 NY2d 195, 199 [1997]; Ocean Diagnostic Imaging P.C. v Allstate Ins. Co., 6 Misc 3d 134[A], 2005 NY Slip Op 50189[U] [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2005]). We find that defendant’s submissions were sufficient to demonstrate that defendant possessed a “founded belief that the [*2]alleged injur[ies] do[] not arise out of an insured incident” (see Central Gen. Hosp., 90 NY2d at 199). Accordingly, the order denying plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is affirmed, albeit on other grounds.

Tanenbaum, J.P., Molia and LaCava, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: March 19, 2009

Supreme Court, Nassau County

15212/08

TO:Joseph Henig, PC

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

1598 Bellmore Avnue

Bellmore, NY 11710

Jaffe & Koumourdas, LLP

Attorneys for Defendant

40 Wall Street, 12th Floor

New York, NY 10005

William R. LaMarca, J.

Relief Requested

Plaintiffs, THE NEW YORK HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER OF QUEENS a/a/o TOPAZ CASTRO (hereinafter referred to as “NYU QUEENS”), and ST. VINCENT’S HOSPITAL & MEDICAL CENTER a/a/o RONNY MUNOZ (hereinafter referred to as “ST. VINCENT’S”), move for an order, pursuant to CPLR §3212, granting them summary judgment on the first and second cause of action against defendant, COUNTRYWIDE INSURANCE COMPANY (hereinafter referred to as “COUNTRYWIDE”), on the ground that COUNTRYWIDE has failed to make timely payment on the claims submitted under the subject policy of insurance and that plaintiffs are entitled to interest and attorneys fees because of the delay in payment. COUNTRYWIDE opposes the motion and cross-moves for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the claims are premature and that plaintiffs fail to state a cause of action. The motion and cross-motion are determined as follows:

This matter arises out of the alleged failure of COUNTRYWIDE to pay two (2) separate no-fault billings and counsel for plaintiffs states that the actions are joined pursuant to CPLR §1002(a) as the claims arise out of a uniform contract of insurance and involve the interpretation of the same no-fault provisions of the Insurance Law, citing [*2]Hempstead General Hospital v Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, 134 AD2d 569, 521 NYS2d 469 (2nd Dept. 1987).

The Statute

11 NYCRR, Part 65, the regulations implementing the Comprehensive Motor Vehicle Insurance Reparations Act, commonly referred to as the No-Fault Law, provides that “No- Fault Benefits are overdue if not paid within 30 calendar days after the insurer receives proof of Claim…”. (11 NYCRR 65-3.8[a][1]). Within thirty (30) days of receiving a claim, the insurer is required to either pay or deny the claim in whole or in part (see, Insurance Law §5106[a]; 11 NYCRR 65-3.8 [c]). However, this thirty (30) day period may be extended by a timely demand by the insurance company for further verification of a claim (see, 11 NYCRR 65-3.5). Within 10 business days after receipt of the completed application for no fault benefits, the insurer must forward, to the parties required to complete them, the prescribed verification forms it will require prior to payment of the initial claim (see, 11 NYCRR 65-3.5[a]). If the demanded verification is not received within thirty (30) days, the insurance company must follow up within ten (10) calendar days of the claimant’s failure to respond, either by telephone call or mail (see, 11 NYCRR § 65-3.6[b]); New York Hospital Medical Center of Queens v State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 293 AD2d 588, 741 NYS2d 86 [2nd Dept. 2002]). As a complete proof of claim is a prerequisite to receiving no-fault benefits, a claim need not be paid or denied until all demanded verification is provided (see, 11 NYCRR 65-3.5[c]; Montefiore Medical Center v New York Central Mutual Fire Insurance Company, 9 AD3d 354, 780 NYS2d 161 (2nd Dept. 2004); New York & Presbyterian Hospital v American Transit Insurance Co., 287 AD2d 699, 733 NYS2d 80 (2nd Dept. 2001); Hospital for Joint Diseases v Elrac, Inc., 11 AD3d 432, 783 NYS2d 612 (2nd Dept. 2004). Statutory interest and attorneys fees may be directed If payment is not timely made on a completed claim. See, Insurance Law § 5106(a), 11 NYCRR §65-3.9 and §3.10.

In viewing motions for summary judgment, it is well settled that summary judgment is a drastic remedy which may only be granted where there is no clear triable issue of fact (see, Andre v Pomeroy, 35 NY2d 361, 362 NYS2d 131, 320 NE2d 853 [C.A. 1974]; Mosheyev v Pilevsky, 283 AD2d 469, 725 NYS2d 206 [2nd Dept. 2001]. Indeed, “[e]ven the color of a triable issue, forecloses the remedy” Rudnitsky v Robbins, 191 AD2d 488, 594 NYS2d 354 [2nd Dept. 1993]). Moreover “[i]t is axiomatic that summary judgment requires issue finding rather than issue-determination and that resolution of issues of credibility is not appropriate” (Greco v Posillico, 290 AD2d 532, 736 NYS2d 418 [2nd Dept. 2002]; Judice v DeAngelo, 272 AD2d 583, 709 NYS2d 817 [2nd Dept. 2000]; see also S.J. Capelin Associates, Inc. v Globe Mfg. Corp., 34 NY2d 338, 357 NYS2d 478, 313 NE2d 776 [C.A.1974]). Further, on a motion for summary judgment, the submissions of the opposing party’s pleadings must be accepted as true (see Glover v City of New York, 298 AD2d 428, 748 NYS2d 393 [2nd Dept. 2002]). As is often stated, the facts must be viewed in a light most favorable to the non-moving party. (See, Mosheyev v Pilevsky, supra ). The burden on the moving party for summary judgment is to demonstrate a prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by tendering sufficient evidence to demonstrate the absence of any material issue of fact (Ayotte v Gervasio, 81 NY2d 1062, 601 NYS2d 463, 619 NE2d 400 [C.A.1993]; Winegrad v New York University Medical Center, 64 NY2d 851, 487 [*3]NYS2d 316, 476 NE2d 642 [C.A. 1985]; Drago v King, 283 AD2d 603, 725 NYS2d 859 [2nd Dept. 2001]). If the initial burden is met, the burden then shifts to the non-moving party to come forward with evidence to demonstrate the existence of a material issue of fact requiring a trial. (CPLR§ 3212, subd [b]; see also GTF Marketing, Inc. v Colonial Aluminum Sales, Inc., 66 NY2d 965, 498 NYS2d 786, 489 NE2d 755 [C.A. 1985]; Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 427 NYS2d 595, 404 NE2d 718 [C.A. 1980]). The non-moving party must lay bare all of the facts at its disposal regarding the issues raised in the motion. (Mgrditchian v Donato, 141 AD2d 513, 529 NYS2d 134 [2nd Dept. 1988]).

First Cause of Action: TOPAZ CASTRO

Plaintiff, NYU QUEENS, is the assignee for health services rendered to TOPAZ CASTRO during the period from March 3, 2008 through March 5, 2008, arising out of an automobile accident that occurred on March 3, 2008. Plaintiff claims that it billed COUNTRYWIDE with a Hospital Facility Form (Form NF-5) and a UB-92 on April 17, 2008, in the sum of $4,188.25, by Certified Mail, Return Receipt requested, which was received by COUNTRYWIDE on April 18, 2008. It is plaintiff’s position that COUNTRYWIDE failed to pay or issue a Denial of Claim Form within a period of thirty (30) days and, therefore, it is entitled to summary judgment together with interest and attorney”s fees as a matter of law.

In support of its motion to dismiss, COUNTRYWIDE, although acknowledging that it received the bill on April 18, 2008, states that the moving papers are insufficient to establish plaintiff’s prima facie right to summary judgment because the affidavits in support are submitted by a billing accounts representative of Hospital Receivables Systems, Inc.,

a person without knowledge of the facts and, therefore, does not satisfy the business records exception to the hearsay rule and, moreover, the action is premature as there are outstanding verification requests which plaintiff has failed to provide. It appears that, on May 15, 2008, COUNTRYWIDE issued verification requests that sought the completed NF-2, question #

20, on the revised form, the NF-5 on the revised form, signed, no stamps, and the assignment of benefits on the revised form, which were requested again on June 14, 2008 A review of the submitted forms reveals that where the patient’s signature is required, the forms say “ON FILE”. It is COUNTRYWIDE’s position that the claim was not overdue when the action was commenced and, thus, it is premature and should be dismissed. In reply, counsel for plaintiff points out that the 2003 NF-5 Form that it utilized was substantially the same as the 2004 NF-5 Form and that 11 NYCRR 65-3.5(f) provides that “[a]n insurer must accept proof of claim submitted on a form other than a prescribed form it contains substantially the same information as the prescribed form”. Additionally counsel for plaintiff states that 11 NYCRR 65-3.5(g) allows the hospital to bill with a “NYS Form NF-5” without qualification. Finally, plaintiff states that a copy of the signed assignment of benefits was faxed to COUNTRYWIDE on May 29, 2008, and this action was commenced on August 18, 2008, when the claim was overdue and unpaid.

After a careful reading of the submissions herein, it is the judgment of the Court that NYU QUEENS established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting an affidavit from the third-party biller who asserted that he billed COUNTRYWIDE for the subject medical treatment, and that defendant either failed to pay [*4]the entire claim or to issue a Denial of Claim Form. New York Presbyterian Hospital v Allstate Insurance Company, 30 AD3d 492, 819 NYS2d 268 (2nd Dept. 2006). The Court credits the statement of the billing account representative for NYU QUEENS that he has personal knowledge of the patient account and personal knowledge of the certified mailing (Freeport Medical P.C. v Utica National Insurance Company, 20 Misc 3d 132A, 867 NYS2d 16 [App. Term, Second Dept. 2008]), and further finds that the 2003 Forms contain substantially the same information as the 2004 Forms. Moreover, the hospital facility forms submitted on behalf of the patient indicated that the signature of the patient/assignor was “on file” and COUNTRYWIDE’s objection to the completeness of the form and request for verification is untimely. Accordingly, defendant has waived said defense. Hospital for Joint Diseases v Allstate Insurance Company, 21 AD3d 348, 800 NYS2d 190 (2nd Dept. 2005). The Court finds that a completed claim was not paid within thirty (30) days of presentation, and is “overdue” within the meaning of the Insurance Law requiring an award of interest and attorney fees on the claim from the date the claim was first presented. Hempstead General Hospital v Insurance Company of North America, 208 AD2d 501, 617 NYS2d 478 (2nd Dept. 1994). Attorney’s fees are limited to 20% of the amount of first party benefits, plus interest thereon, subject to a maximum fee of $850. See, 11 NYCRR §65-4.6(e). Interest shall be assessed at the rate of 2% per month. See, Insurance Law § 5106 (a); Smithtown General Hospital v State Farm Mutual Auto Insurance Co., 207 AD2d 338, 615 NYS2d 426 (2nd Dept. 1994).

Second Cause of Action: RONNY MUNOZ

Plaintiff, ST. VINCENT’S, is the assignee for health services rendered to RONNY MUNOZ, during the period from April 29, 2008 through May 1, 2008, arising out of an automobile accident that occurred on April 29, 2008. Plaintiff claims that it billed COUNTRYWIDE with a Hospital Facility Form (Form NF-5) and a UB-92 on June 12, 2008, in the sum of $10,508.72, by Certified Mail, Return Receipt requested, which was received by COUNTRYWIDE on June 16, 2008. It is plaintiff’s position that COUNTRYWIDE failed to pay or issue a Denial of Claim Form within a period of thirty (30) days and, therefore, it is entitled to summary judgment together with interest and attorney”s fees as a matter of law.

In support of its motion to dismiss, COUNTRYWIDE, although acknowledging that it received the bill on June 16, 2008, states that the moving papers are insufficient to establish plaintiff’s prima facie right to summary judgment because the affidavits in support are submitted by a billing accounts representative of Hospital Receivables Systems, Inc.,

a person without knowledge of the facts and, therefore, does not satisfy the business records exception to the hearsay rule and, moreover, the action is premature as there are outstanding verification requests which plaintiff has failed to provide. COUNTRYWIDE claims that, on July 16, 2008, it sent a verification request for the NF-5 on the revised form, the assignment of benefits on the revised form and the “in linear calculation sheet”. It is claimed that, when the plaintiff failed to respond, on August 15, 2008, is issued a second verification request. A review of the submitted forms reveals that where the patient’s signature is required, the forms say “ON FILE”. It is COUNTRYWIDE’s position that the claim was not overdue when the action was commenced and, thus, is premature and should be dismissed. In reply, counsel for plaintiff points out that the 2003 NF-5 Form [*5]that it utilized was substantially the same as the 2004 NF-5 Form and that 11 NYCRR 65-3.5(f) provides that “[a]n insurer must accept proof of claim submitted on a form other than a prescribed form it contains substantially the same information as the prescribed form”. Additionally counsel for plaintiff states that 11 NYCRR 65-3.5(g) allows the hospital to bill with a “NYS Form NF-5” without qualification. Moreover, counsel for plaintiff argues that COUNTRYWIDE’s verification requests are defective because the verification requests are untimely. Counsel contends that although the bill was received on June 16, 2008, COUNTRYWIDE’s verification requests are dated July 16, 2008 and August 15, 2008, respectively, and are both beyond the statutory deadlines. 11 NYCRR §63-3.5(b), §65-3.6(b).

After a careful reading of the submissions herein, it is the judgment of the Court that ST. VINCENT’S established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting an affidavit from the third-party biller who asserted that he billed COUNTRYWIDE for the subject medical treatment, and that defendant either failed to pay the entire claim or to issue a Denial of Claim Form. New York Presbyterian Hospital v Allstate Insurance Company, 30 AD3d 492, 819 NYS2d 268 (2nd Dept. 2006). The Court credits the statement of the billing account representative for ST. VINCENT’S that he has personal knowledge of the patient account and personal knowledge of the certified mailing (Freeport Medical P.C. v Utica National Insurance Company, 20 Misc 3d 132A, 867 NYS2d 16 [App. Term, Second Dept. 2008]), and further finds that the 2003 Forms contain substantially the same information as the 2004 Forms. Moreover, the hospital facility forms submitted on behalf of the patient indicated that the signature of the patient/assignor was “on file” and COUNTRYWIDE’s objection to the completeness of the form and request for verification is untimely. Accordingly, defendant has waived said defense. Hospital for Joint Diseases v Allstate Insurance Company, 21 AD3d 348, 800 NYS2d 190 (2nd Dept. 2005). The Court finds that a completed claim was not paid within thirty (30) days of presentation, and is “overdue” within the meaning of the Insurance Law requiring an award of interest and attorney fees on the claim from the date the claim was first presented. Hempstead General Hospital v Insurance Company of North America, 208 AD2d 501, 617 NYS2d 478 (2nd Dept. 1994). Attorney’s fees are limited to 20% of the amount of first party benefits, plus interest thereon, subject to a maximum fee of $850. See, 11 NYCRR §65-4.6(e). Interest shall be assessed at the rate of 2% per month. See, Insurance Law § 5106 (a); Smithtown General Hospital v State Farm Mutual Auto Insurance Co., 207 AD2d 338, 615 NYS2d 426 (2nd Dept. 1994).

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, it is hereby

ORDERED, that plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on the first and second causes of action is granted; and it is further

ORDERED, that defendant’s cross-motion for summary judgment on the first and second causes of action is denied.

All further requested relief not specifically granted is denied.

This constitutes the decision and order of the Court. Settle Judgment on Notice.

Dated: March 17, 2009 [*6]

_________________________

WILLIAM R. LaMARCA, J.S.C.

nyhospaaocastro,stvincentsaaomunoz,#

1,#

2/sumjudg

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

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

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Alice Fisher Rubin, J.), entered September 11, 2007, deemed from a judgment of the same court entered December 13, 2007 (see CPLR 5501 [c]). The judgment, entered pursuant to the September 11, 2007 order denying defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3126 and granting plaintiff’s cross motion for summary judgment, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $612.69.

Judgment affirmed without costs.

In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, insofar as is relevant to this appeal, plaintiff moved for summary judgment. Defendant opposed the motion, arguing that the alleged injuries did not arise from an insured incident and that the assignor failed to comply with a condition precedent to coverage. The Civil Court granted plaintiff’s motion, holding that defendant did not plead fraud with the requisite particularity and that it did not establish a founded belief that the accident at issue was intentional. The instant appeal ensued. A judgment was subsequently entered (see CPLR 5501 [c]).

In its answer, defendant asserted, as an affirmative defense, that “the accident that is alleged in plaintiff’s complaint was not an accident, but a staged, intentional act, for which there is no insurance coverage.” We need not determine whether this affirmative defense, which has been treated as a lack of coverage defense (see Matter of Allstate Ins. Co. v Massre, 14 AD3d 610 [2005]; Matter of Metro Med. Diagnostics v Eagle Ins. Co., 293 AD2d 751 [2002]; see also Central Gen. Hosp. v Chubb Group of Ins. Cos., 90 NY2d 195, 199 [1997]), is, for the purpose of CPLR 3016 (b), based upon fraud, such that the rule’s pleading requirements are triggered, since, in any event, the defense was stated with particularity. To the extent that defendant’s [*2]conclusory allegations of “illegal and/or fraudulent conduct,” and “material misrepresentations [made] in the presentation of the claim,” may have applied to circumstances other than its staged accident defense, defendant failed to meet the pleading requirements of CPLR 3016 (b) or to raise such defenses in opposition to plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (see First Trust Natl. Assn. v DeLuca, 284 AD2d 494 [2001]).

In view of the foregoing, in order to successfully oppose plaintiff’s motion, defendant was required to establish “the fact or founded belief that the alleged injur[ies] do[] not arise out of an insured incident” (Central Gen. Hosp. v Chubb Group of Ins. Cos., 90 NY2d 195, 199 [1997]; Ocean Diagnostic Imaging P.C. v Allstate Ins. Co., 6 Misc 3d 134[A], 2005 NY Slip Op 50189[U] [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2005]). Mere “unsubstantiated assertions or speculations” are insufficient (Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 327 [1986]). The affidavit submitted by defendant’s investigator, the testimony given by plaintiff’s assignor and the driver during their examinations under oath, and the unsworn statement of the adverse driver submitted by defendant were insufficient to establish a founded belief that the alleged injuries did not arise out of a covered accident (see Central Gen. Hosp., 90 NY2d 195).

Defendant argues that plaintiff’s assignor failed to provide his personal income tax returns, which defendant claims to have requested in order to substantiate the assignor’s alleged lost wages claim, and thus failed to comply with a condition precedent to coverage. We need not determine whether plaintiff’s assignor failed to comply with a condition precedent since, in light of the “confidential and private nature” of an individual’s income tax returns (see Walter Karl, Inc. v Wood, 161 AD2d 704 [1990]), which contain information far broader than that sought by defendant, defendant failed to make a sufficient showing of special circumstances to warrant their production (see Dore v Allstate Indem. Co., 264 AD2d 804 [1999]), especially given the fact that the information sought could have been obtained through other, more focused, means.

Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

Pesce, P.J., Rios and Steinhardt, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: March 17, 2009

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

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

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Alice Fisher Rubin, J.), entered July 9, 2007. The order granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Order affirmed without costs.

In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, defendant moved for summary judgment, asserting, inter alia, that the services rendered were not medically necessary. In opposition, plaintiff argued, inter alia, that defendant failed to make a prima facie showing that the services at issue were not medically necessary. The Civil Court granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, holding that defendant established a lack of medical necessity and that defendant’s denial of claim form interposing said defense was timely. The instant appeal by plaintiff ensued.

Contrary to plaintiff’s contention, defendant demonstrated that it timely mailed the denial of claim form at issue based upon its standard office practice or procedure designed to ensure that items are properly addressed and mailed (Residential Holding Corp. v Scottsdale Ins. Co., 286 AD2d 679 [2001]; Delta Diagnostic Radiology, P.C. v Chubb Group of Ins., 17 Misc 3d 16, 18 [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2007]). Defendant’s affirmed peer review report and the affidavit of its peer review acupuncturist established prima facie that there was no medical necessity for the services provided by plaintiff. We note that as some of the medical reports relied upon by defendant’s acupuncturist in his peer review report were prepared by plaintiff, plaintiff could not challenge the reliability of its own medical records and reports (see Cross Cont. Med., P.C. v Allstate Ins. Co., 13 Misc 3d 10 [App Term, 1st Dept 2006]; see also Home [*2]Care Ortho. Med. Supply, Inc. v American Mfrs. Mut. Ins. Co., 14 Misc 3d 139[A], 2007 NY Slip Op 50302[U] [App Term, 1st Dept 2007]). Furthermore, since it has been held that an “expert witness’s testimony of reliance upon out-of-court material to form an opinion may be received in evidence, provided there is proof of reliability” (Wagman v Bradshaw, 292 AD2d 84, 85-86 [2002]), the fact that defendant’s peer reviewer relied upon medical reports from other medical providers in forming his opinion as to the medical necessity of the service performed does not render the peer review report insufficient to establish a lack of medical necessity. Inasmuch as plaintiff failed to rebut said showing, defendant was entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaint (see 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]).

Plaintiff’s remaining contention lacks merit.

Weston Patterson, J.P., Golia and Steinhardt, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: March 17, 2009

—[*1] Short & Billy, P.C., New York, N.Y. (Helene Jnane of counsel), for appellant.

Joseph Henig, P.C., Bellmore, N.Y., for respondent.

In an action to recover no-fault medical payments under certain insurance contracts, the defendant appeals, as limited by its brief, from (1) so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (McCormack, J.), dated January 21, 2008, as granted that branch of the plaintiffs’ motion which was for summary judgment on the first cause of action asserted by the plaintiff Westchester Medical Center, as assignee of Daphne McPherson, and (2) so much of a judgment of the same court entered April 16, 2008, as, upon the order, is in favor of the plaintiff Westchester Medical Center, as assignee of Daphne McPherson, and against it in the principal sum of $6,993.96. The notice of appeal from the order is deemed also to be a notice of appeal from the judgment (see CPLR 5501 [c]).

Ordered that the appeal from the order dated January 21, 2008 is dismissed; and it is further,

Ordered that the judgment is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, that branch of the plaintiffs’ motion which was for summary judgment on the first cause of action asserted by the plaintiff Westchester Medical Center, as assignee of Daphne McPherson, is denied, and the order dated January 21, 2008 is modified accordingly; and it is further,

Ordered that one bill of costs is awarded to the appellant.

The appeal from the intermediate order must be dismissed because the right of direct appeal therefrom terminated with the entry of judgment in the action (see Matter of Aho, 39 NY2d 241, 248 [1976]). [*2]The issues raised on the appeal from the order are brought up for review and have been considered on the appeal from the judgment (see CPLR 5501 [a] [1]).

The plaintiff Westchester Medical Center (hereinafter WMC), among others, commenced this action to recover no-fault medical benefits allegedly owed its patient/assignor Daphne McPherson for injuries sustained by her in a motor vehicle accident involving an insured of the defendant American Transit Insurance Company. The plaintiffs moved for summary judgment on the first cause of action asserted by WMC, as assignee of McPherson, arguing that the defendant received a demand for payment of such benefits on February 20, 2007 and neither paid nor denied such benefits within 30 days. WMC asserted that the defendant did not deny benefits until April 5, 2007. Thus, WMC argued, the benefits were now “overdue” (see 11 NYCRR 65-3.8). In opposition, the defendant argued, inter alia, that its denial of benefits was timely as a result of the toll of its time within which to pay or deny a claim arising from its demand for additional verification of the claim. The Supreme Court, among other things, awarded WMC summary judgment on the first cause of action. We reverse the judgment entered upon the order insofar as appealed from.

The defendant does not dispute that it received a demand for no-fault benefits from WMC on February 20, 2007 and that it neither paid nor denied such benefits within 30 days thereof (see 11 NYCRR 65-3.8 [c]; Westchester Med. Ctr. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 44 AD3d 750 [2007]). However, the defendant demonstrated, prima facie, that it made a timely request for additional verification of the claim, and that its denial of benefits was timely as measured from the receipt of additional verification which allegedly revealed that McPherson was entitled to workers’ compensation benefits for the underlying accident (see 11 NYCRR 65-3.5 [b]; 65-3.8 [b]; Westchester Med. Ctr. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 44 AD3d 750 [2007]; Montefiore Med. Ctr. v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 34 AD3d 771 [2006]). Thus, that branch of the plaintiffs’ motion which was for summary judgment on the first cause of action asserted by WMC, as assignee of McPherson, should have been denied.

We decline the defendant’s request, in effect, to search the record and award it summary judgment dismissing WMC’s cause of action and to refer the matter to the Workers’ Compensation Board for a determination as to whether McPherson is entitled to workers’ compensation benefits for the underlying accident (see generally O’Hurley-Pitts v Diocese of Rockville Ctr., 57 AD3d 633 [2008]; Catapane v Half Hollow Hills Cent. School Dist., 45 AD3d 517 [2007]). The defendant, inter alia, failed to proffer competent evidence in admissible form of the alleged facts giving rise to its contention that workers’ compensation benefits are available. Rivera, J.P., Spolzino, Ritter and Miller, JJ., concur. [See 19 Misc 3d 1104(A), 2008 NY Slip Op 50546(U).]

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

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

Appeal and cross appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Thomas D. Raffaele, J.), entered May 19, 2006. The order, insofar as appealed from by plaintiff, denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and, upon a search of the record, granted defendant summary judgment dismissing plaintiff’s second cause of action. The order, insofar as cross-appealed from by defendant as limited by its brief, denied its application in the Civil Court to search the record and grant defendant summary judgment dismissing plaintiff’s first cause of action.

Order modified by providing that the branch of plaintiff’s motion seeking summary judgment on its first cause of action is granted; as so modified, affirmed without costs and matter remanded to the Civil Court for the calculation of statutory interest and an assessment of attorney’s fees thereon.

In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, plaintiff moved for summary judgment. Defendant opposed the motion, and while it did not cross-move for any relief, it requested that the court search the record and grant it summary judgment. The Civil Court denied plaintiff’s motion and, upon a search of the record, granted defendant summary judgment dismissing plaintiff’s second cause of action on the ground that it was premature. Plaintiff appeals from said order. Defendant cross-appeals, arguing that, upon the search of the record, the court should have granted defendant summary judgment dismissing plaintiff’s first cause of action on the ground that it too was premature (see Coleman v Hayes, 294 AD2d 458 [2002]).

Plaintiff established its prima facie entitlement to summary judgment by proving the submission of statutory claim forms, setting forth the fact and the amount of the loss sustained, [*2]and that payment of no-fault benefits was overdue (see Insurance Law § 5106 [a]; Mary Immaculate Hosp. v Allstate Ins. Co., 5 AD3d 742 [2004]). We note that the affidavit submitted by plaintiff’s corporate officer demonstrated that the annexed claim forms constituted evidence in admissible form (see CPLR 4518; Dan Med., P.C. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 14 Misc 3d 44 [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2006]). The burden then shifted to defendant to raise a triable issue of fact (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]).

Defendant established that its requests for verification and follow-up verification of the claim upon which plaintiff’s second cause of action was based, were timely mailed by setting forth the office practices or procedures used to ensure that such items are properly addressed and mailed (see Residential Holding Corp. v Scottsdale Ins. Co., 286 AD2d 679 [2001]; Delta Diagnostic Radiology, P.C. v Chubb Group of Ins., 17 Misc 3d 16 [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2007]). Inasmuch as plaintiff did not demonstrate that it provided defendant with the verification sought by defendant in its verification and follow-up verification requests, the Civil Court, under the circumstances presented, upon searching the record, properly granted defendant summary judgment dismissing plaintiff’s second cause of action, since said cause of action is premature as payment upon this claim is not overdue (see Central Suffolk Hosp. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 24 AD3d 492 [2005] [failure to respond to request and follow-up request for verification renders action premature]).

It is uncontroverted that defendant received plaintiff’s claims for the services upon which plaintiff’s first cause of action is based and issued timely NF-10 denial of claim forms, which denied said claims due to the alleged failure of the assignor to attend independent medical examinations (IMEs). However, the affidavit submitted by the general manager/marketing director for the company defendant employed to issue verification requests on its behalf was insufficient to show that any verification requests for IMEs were mailed and that the assignor failed to appear at the IMEs (see Stephen Fogel Psychological, P.C. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 35 AD3d 720, 721 [2006]). Consequently, defendant failed to raise a triable issue of fact, and plaintiff is entitled to summary judgment upon its first cause of action (id.).

Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment upon its first cause of action is granted and the matter is remanded to the Civil Court for the calculation of statutory interest and an assessment of attorney’s fees upon said cause of action pursuant to Insurance Law § 5106 (a) and the regulations promulgated thereunder.

Pesce, P.J., Rios and Steinhardt, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: March 16, 2009

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

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

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Diane A. Lebedeff, J.), entered December 19, 2007. The order, insofar as appealed from, denied defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Order, insofar as appealed from, affirmed without costs.

In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, plaintiff moved for summary judgment and defendant cross-moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground of lack of medical necessity. The court denied both plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment, finding that an issue of fact existed as to whether the supplies provided were medically necessary. The instant appeal by defendant ensued.

Defendant, through the submission of the affidavit of its no-fault litigation claims examiner, and the affirmed peer review report of Dr. Dumesh and the affidavit of Dr. Salayka, established a prima facie case that plaintiff’s claims were properly and timely denied based upon a lack of medical necessity (see Residential Holding Corp. v Scottsdale Ins. Co., 286 AD2d 679 [2001]; Delta Diagnostic Radiology, P.C. v Chubb Group of Ins. Cos., 17 Misc 3d 16 [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2007]).

However, in response to defendant’s cross motion, plaintiff submitted an affidavit from Dr. Shapiro in which he stated that he disagreed with the peer review report and affidavit furnished by defendant because he concluded that the supplies provided were medically necessary. Since the affidavit of Dr. Shapiro demonstrated the existence of an issue of fact as to medical necessity (see A.B. Med. Servs., PLLC v American Tr. Ins. Co., 15 Misc 3d 132[A], [*2]2007 NY Slip Op 50680[U] [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2007]), the Civil Court properly denied defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment. Defendant’s remaining contention lacks merit. Accordingly, the order, insofar as appealed from, is affirmed.

Weston Patterson, J.P., Golia and Steinhardt, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: March 12, 2009

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

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

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Timothy J. Dufficy, J.), entered December 12, 2007. The order, insofar as appealed from as limited by the brief, denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment.

Order, insofar as appealed from, reversed without costs, plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment granted and matter remanded to the Civil Court for the calculation of statutory interest and an assessment of attorney’s fees.

In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, plaintiff moved for summary judgment. Defendant cross-moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and, in opposition to plaintiff’s motion, argued that plaintiff did not make a prima facie showing and, in any event, plaintiff’s assignor failed to appear for independent medical examinations (IMEs). The Civil Court denied both motions. As limited by its brief, plaintiff appeals from the denial of its motion for summary judgment.

A provider establishes its prima facie entitlement to summary judgment by proof of the submission of a statutory claim form, setting forth the fact and the amount of the loss sustained, and that payment of no-fault benefits was overdue (see Insurance Law § 5106 [a]; Mary Immaculate Hosp. v Allstate Ins. Co., 5 AD3d 742 [2004]). In the instant case, any deficiency in plaintiff’s moving papers regarding proof of mailing of the claim forms was cured by defendant’s claim denial forms, and the affidavit of defendant’s claims representative in which receipt of the claims in question was conceded (see East Acupuncture, P.C. v Electric Ins. Co., 16 Misc 3d 128[A], 2007 NY Slip Op 51281[U] [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2007]; Oleg Barshay, D.C., P.C. v State Farm Ins. Co., 14 Misc 3d 74 [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2006]). We note that the affidavit submitted by plaintiff’s billing manager sufficed to establish that the [*2]annexed claim forms constituted evidence in admissible form (see CPLR 4518; Dan Med., P.C. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 14 Misc 3d 44 [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2006]). Consequently, the record establishes plaintiff’s prima facie entitlement to summary judgment.

While defendant asserts that it timely denied plaintiff’s claim based on the assignor’s failure to appear for two scheduled IMEs, defendant failed to establish by proof in admissible form that the IME requests were timely mailed to the assignor and that the assignor failed to appear for the IMEs (see Stephen Fogel Psychological, P.C. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 35 AD3d 720 [2006]). Consequently, plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment should have been granted. We reach no other issue.

Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is granted and the matter is remanded to the Civil Court for the calculation of statutory interest and an assessment of attorney’s fees pursuant to Insurance Law § 5106 (a) and the regulations promulgated thereunder.

Pesce, P.J., Rios and Steinhardt, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: March 10, 2009

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

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

Appeal from a “judgment” of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Lee A. Mayersohn, J.), dated August 4, 2005, deemed from the judgment entered December 26, 2007 (see CPLR 5520 [c]). The judgment, after a nonjury trial, dismissed the complaint.

Judgment affirmed without costs.

At the trial in this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, plaintiff sought to lay a foundation for the admission into evidence of its claim forms by proffering the testimony of an individual that was employed by plaintiff at the time the services at issue were allegedly rendered. The witness testified that she was not involved in billing insurance companies, but that she saw documents like the ones plaintiff sought to introduce into evidence every day and she recognized them as bills for psychological services. Defendant objected to the admission of the bills into evidence, and the court sustained the objection. Plaintiff concluded its case without calling another witness to lay a foundation for the admission into evidence of plaintiff’s claim forms. The court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss due to plaintiff’s failure to prove its prima facie case. This appeal by plaintiff ensued. A judgment was subsequently entered.

It was plaintiff’s burden “to proffer evidence in admissible form, i.e., by introducing into evidence the claim form in question by, inter alia, calling a witness to lay a foundation for the admissibility of the claim form as a business record” (Bajaj v General Assur., 18 Misc 3d 25 [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2007]). Plaintiff’s witness “failed to demonstrate that [she] possessed sufficient personal knowledge of plaintiff’s office practices and procedures so as to lay a foundation for the admission of the [proffered] documents as business records” (Dan Med., P.C. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 14 Misc 3d 44 [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists [*2]2006]; see also Art of Healing Medicine, P.C. v Travelers Home & Mar. Ins. Co., 55 AD3d 644 [2008]). Accordingly, the court properly ruled that plaintiff’s claim forms were not admissible as business records and properly granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint due to plaintiff’s failure to make a prima facie showing.

In light of the foregoing, we reach no other issue.

Weston Patterson, J.P., Golia and Steinhardt, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: March 10, 2009

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

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

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Diccia T. Pineda-Kirwan, J.), dated October 6, 2005, deemed from a judgment of the same court entered March 1, 2006 (see CPLR 5520 [c]). The judgment, after a nonjury trial, dismissed the complaint.

Judgment affirmed without costs.

At the trial in this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, plaintiff offered the testimony of its file clerk and sought the admission into evidence of, inter alia, its purported claim form. Defendant objected on the ground that said document was hearsay and that plaintiff had failed to lay a foundation for its admission into evidence pursuant to CPLR 4518. Plaintiff then called defendant’s litigation specialist, who testified that defendant received the bill at issue. However, the Civil Court did not admit plaintiff’s bill into evidence. After defendant rested without calling any witnesses, the Civil Court granted defendant’s motion for a directed verdict, finding that plaintiff failed to make a prima facie case. This appeal by plaintiff ensued. A judgment was subsequently entered.

The testimony by the witnesses called by plaintiff did not demonstrate that they possessed sufficient personal knowledge to lay a foundation to establish that plaintiff’s bill was admissible as a business record (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]; Midborough Acupuncture, P.C. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 13 Misc 3d 132[A], 2006 NY Slip Op 51879[U] [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2006]). Consequently, plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case (see Bajaj v General Assur., 18 Misc 3d 25 [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2007]). Accordingly, the judgment is [*2]affirmed.

In light of the foregoing, we reach no other issue.

Weston Patterson, J.P., Golia and Steinhardt, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: March 10, 2009