SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

APPELLATE TERM: 2nd and 11th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS

Appeal by plaintiffs from an order of the Civil Court, Queens County (J. Golia, J.), entered June 10, 2003, denying their motion for summary judgment.

Order unanimously affirmed without costs.

In this action to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment was supported by the affidavit of Janet Safir, “the practice and billing manager of each plaintiff company,” who averred that she submitted to defendant
the “claim forms and medical reports” which were annexed to the motion papers. There was, however, no allegation in the affidavit as to when the fifteen annexed claim forms were submitted. A plaintiff establishes a prima facie entitlement to summary judgment by offering evidentiary proof that it submitted 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; Mary Immaculate Hosp. v Allstate Ins. Co., 5 AD3d 742 [2004]). No-fault benefits are overdue if not paid within 30 calendar days after the insurer receives proof of claim, which includes verification of all relevant information requested (see 11 NYCRR 65.15 [g] [1], now 11 NYCRR [*2]65-3.8 [a] [1]). In the instant case, in order to establish that payment on the claims being sued upon was overdue, plaintiffs had to demonstrate that the requisite 30 calendar days had elapsed, which they sought to do by relying upon defendant’s letters, dated February 13, 2002, acknowledging receipt of claims, but not specifying the particular claims received. In the absence of any evidence as to when plaintiffs submitted their claim forms to defendant, and in the absence of any specification in defendant’s letters of February 13, 2002 as to which claims it had received prior thereto, plaintiffs were unable to establish whether payments as to all, or even any, of the claims being sued upon [*3]
were overdue. Accordingly, having failed to make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment was properly denied by the court below.
Decision Date: February 02, 2005

—[*1]

Order of the Appellate Term of the State of New York, First Department, entered on or about June 18, 2003, which, in an action by a health provider against a no-fault insurer to recover on an assigned no-fault claim, reversed an order, Civil Court, Bronx County (Wilma Guzman, J.), entered October 24, 2001, denying plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, and, inter alia, granted the motion, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff submitted a claim to defendant for orthopedic services it provided to its assignor from November 4, 1998 to February 8, 1999. More than 30 days later, and after plaintiff had commenced the instant action alleging that defendant had neither paid nor denied the claim within 30 days as required by Insurance Law § 5106 (a) and 11 NYCRR 65.15 (g) (3), defendant rejected a portion of the claim, explaining that it had previously denied all further orthopedic benefits effective January 26, 1999, and that it was accordingly denying the claim insofar as it sought benefits for services provided after that date. It appears that on January 19, 1999, defendant had sent plaintiff’s assignor a denial of claim form advising that all further orthopedic benefits would be denied effective January 26, 1999, based on an independent medical examination showing no further need for treatment. Appellate Term rejected defendant’s argument that the January 19, 1999 denial of claim form it had sent to plaintiff’s assignor is imputable to plaintiff (citing Atlantis Med. v Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 2002 NY Slip Op 40043U [Dist Ct, Nassau County 2002], and held that defendant’s failure to respond to plaintiff’s claim within the statutory 30-day time limit precluded defendant from defending against the claim on the ground that any treatment after January 26, 1999 was unnecessary (citing Presbyterian Hosp. v Maryland Cas. Co., 90 NY2d 274 [1997]; Central Gen. Hosp. v Chubb Group of Ins. Cos., 90 NY2d 195 [1997]; Country-Wide Ins. Co. v Zablozki, 257 AD2d 506 [1999], lv denied 93 NY2d 809 [1999]).

We hold that the No-Fault Law itself (Insurance Law art 51), and the regulations promulgated thereunder for settlement of claims (11 NYCRR 65.15), require that “When a provider of medical services [first] submits a claim as assignee of an insured, neither the statute nor the regulations contemplate the insurer simply sitting mute and failing to act upon the claim, silently and secretly relying upon an earlier [blanket] denial issued directly to the insured” (Atlantis Med., 2002 NY Slip Op 40043U at *9; see also Aurora Chiropractic, P.C. v Farm & Cas. Ins. [*2]Co. of Conn., 4 Misc 3d 1026 [A], 2004 NY Slip Op 51066[U], *2-3 [2004]; compare Hospital for Joint Diseases v Allstate Ins. Co., 5 AD3d 441 [2d Dept 2004]). Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Saxe, Friedman, Sullivan and Williams, JJ. [See 196 Misc 2d 322.]

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

APPELLATE TERM: 2nd and 11th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS

Appeal by defendant from an order of the Civil Court, Kings County (L. Baily-Schiffman, J.), entered on November 21, 2003, which granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and denied defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment.

Order modified by providing that plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is denied; as so modified, affirmed without costs.

In this action to recover no-fault benefits for medical services rendered to its assignor, plaintiff health care provider established a prima facie entitlement to summary
judgment by the submission of evidentiary proof that it mailed, and defendant received, the statutory claim forms, and that defendant failed to pay or deny the claims within the prescribed 30-day period (see Insurance Law § 5106 [a]; New York Hosp. Med. Ctr. of Queens v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 8 AD3d 640 [2004]; [Mary Immaculate Hosp. v Allstate Ins. Co., 5 AD3d 742 [2004]; Amaze Med. Supply v Eagle Ins. Co., 2 Misc 3d 128 [A], 2003 NY Slip Op 51701 [U] [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists]; Damadian MRI in Elmhurst v Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 2 Misc 3d 128 [A], 2003 NY Slip Op 51700 [U] [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists]). [*2]Moreover, defendant’s requests for examinations under oath did not toll the 30-day claim determination period since the applicable insurance regulations did not contain provisions requiring a claimant to submit to examinations under oath (see Melbourne Med., P.C. v Utica Mut. Ins. Co., 4 Misc 3d 92 [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2004]; A.B. Med. Servs. v Eagle Ins. Co., 3 Misc 3d 8 [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2003]).

However, defendant is not precluded from asserting the defense that the collision was in furtherance of an insurance fraud scheme, despite the untimely denial of the claims (see Matter of Metro Med. Diagnostics v Eagle Ins. Co., 293 AD2d 751 [2002]). The affidavit submitted by defendant’s claims specialist was sufficient to demonstrate that defendant’s denial was based upon a “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]). Accordingly, since defendant demonstrated the existence of a triable issue of fact as to whether there was a lack of coverage (see id.), plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment should have been denied. Inasmuch as defendant has failed to establish entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, its cross motion for summary judgment was properly denied.

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

Golia, J., taking no part.
Decision Date: January 27, 2005

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

APPELLATE TERM: 2nd and 11th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS

Appeal by plaintiffs from so much of an order of the Civil Court, Kings County (S. Hinds-Radix, J.), entered on January 7, 2004, as denied the motion by plaintiffs A.B. Medical Services PLLC, D.A.V. Chiropractic P.C., Square Synagogue Transportation Inc. and S & M Supply Inc. for summary judgment, and which denied the motion by plaintiffs Daniel Kim’s Acupuncture P.C. and Somun Acupuncture P.C. for summary judgment with leave to renew.

Order insofar as appealed from unanimously modified by striking the provision granting plaintiffs Daniel Kim’s Acupuncture P.C. and Somun Acupuncture P.C. leave to renew their motion for summary judgment; as so modified, affirmed without costs.

A plaintiff health care provider establishes a prima facie entitlement to no-fault benefits by proof that it submitted the 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]; Amaze Med. Supply v Eagle Ins. Co., 2 Misc 3d 128[A], 2003 NY Slip Op 51701[U] [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists]). An [*2]insurer’s failure to timely pay or deny the claim within the 30-day statutory period precludes it from asserting most defenses (see Presbyterian Hosp. in City of N. Y. v Maryland Cas. Co., 90 NY2d 274, 282 [1997]). However, contrary to defendant’s contention, and the apparent determination of the court below, a timely denial does not relieve an insurer opposing a motion for summary judgment from the necessity of submitting proof in admissible form to rebut a plaintiffs’ prima facie case (see e.g. A.B. Med. Servs. PLLC v Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co., 4 Misc 3d 86 [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2004]).

The court denied plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment on the ground that issues of fact exist with regard to the validity of the assignments. To the extent that the court’s decision may have been based on the lack of proof authenticating the signature of plaintiffs’ assignor on the assignment forms, it is erroneous. The lack of authentication of the assignor’s signature, in and of itself, does not constitute a defect in the absence of any statutory or regulatory requirement for the same (A.B. Med. Servs. PLLC. v Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., ___ Misc 3d ___, 2004 NY Slip Op 24506[U] [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists]). Even assuming arguendo that a lack of authentication constitutes a cognizable defect, defendant’s failure to seek verification of the assignments, or to allege any deficiency in the assignments in its denial of claim forms, constitutes a waiver of any defenses with respect thereto (see id; New York Hosp. Med. Ctr. of Queens v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 8 AD3d 640 [2004]; Presbyterian Hosp. v Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 233 AD2d 433 [1996]; Park Health Ctr. v Eveready Ins. Co., 2001 NY Slip Op 40665[U] [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists]).

We note that the revised insurance regulations, applicable to claims submitted on or after April 5, 2002, “no longer permit the assignment to health care providers of benefits for non-health-related services (typically housekeeping and transportation expenses) (11 NYCRR 65-3.11 [a]; Insurance Law § 5102 [a] [1])” (Matter of Medical Socy. of State of N.Y. v Serio, 100 NY2d 854, 871 [2003]). Accordingly, while “[s]uch reasonable and necessary expenses remain reimbursable (see Insurance Law § 5102 [a] [3] . . . [they are] nonassignable” (id). The record herein indicates that plaintiff Square Synagogue Transportation Inc. submitted its transportation costs prior to the effective date of the revised regulations.

Despite its untimely denial of certain of plaintiffs’ claims, defendant is not precluded from asserting the defense that the alleged injuries do not arise out of a covered accident (see Central Gen. Hosp. v Chubb Group of Ins. Cos., 90 NY2d 195,
201 [1997]). The affidavit submitted by defendant’s litigation coordinator, and the accompanying examinations under oath, were sufficient to demonstrate that defendant’s denial was based upon a “founded belief that the alleged injur[ies] do[] not arise out of an insured incident” (Central Gen. Hosp., 90 NY2d at 199). Accordingly, since defendant demonstrated the existence of a triable issue of fact as to whether there was a lack of coverage (see id.; Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557 [1980]), plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment was properly denied and renewal thereof would be unwarranted.
Decision Date: January 27, 2005

Civil Court, Kings County

070407/04

Ellen M. Spodek, J.

defendant State Farm Insurance Company moves for an order severing the action brought by plaintiff into separate actions on behalf of the individual assignors.

In this action, plaintiff seeks to recover first party No-Fault benefits with interest and statutory attorneys fees from defendant for alleged medical services provided to its assignors.

Defendant’s motion to sever is hereby denied. The Appellate Division has held that when “claims arise out of a uniform contract of insurance and involves interpretation of the same no-fault provisions of the Insurance Law” severance need not be granted. The Court found that even if the claims involved separate accidents and individuals they do not lose their character as a series of transactions because they occur at different places and times and if they involve a common question of law, as the case at bar does, joinder is proper. ( see Hempstead General Hosp. v Liberty Mut. Ins., 134 AD2d 569 [2d Dept. 1987]). Defendant failed to submit any [*2]documents to demonstrate that the causes of action do not share common questions of law.

Moreover, the instant case involves one plaintiff and one defendant and CPLR 601 permits, and even encourages, joinder with as many claims as one plaintiff might have against one defendant, regardless of whether such claims are related.

Here, this Court finds that joinder of only four assignees does not impose an undue burden on defendant nor would it create confusion for the fact-finder. (see Hempstead, supra )

Lastly, the granting or denial of severance is left to the discretion of the Court. (Sporn v Hudson Transit Lines, 265 App.Div. 360; St. James Realty Corp. Level Realty Corp., 155 N.YS.2d 44; Biltmore Knitwear Corporation v Chalfin, 25 NYS2d 947). Accordingly, defendant’s motion is denied.The foregoing constitutes the decision and order of this court.

E N T E R,

Dated: January 20, 2005 __________________

Hon. Ellen M. Spodek

Judge, Civil Court

[*1]

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Department, January 20, 2005

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

Amos Weinberg, Great Neck, for appellants. Stern & Montana, LLP, New York City (Richard Montana of counsel), for respondent.

{**7 Misc 3d at 15} OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

Order insofar as appealed from unanimously affirmed without costs.

In this action to recover first-party no-fault benefits for medical services rendered to its assignor, plaintiff health care providers established a prima facie entitlement to summary judgment by proof of submission of the 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]; Amaze Med. Supply v Eagle Ins. Co., 2 Misc 3d 128[A], 2003 NY Slip Op 51701[U] [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2003]). Furthermore, defendant’s delay letters, acknowledging receipt of the bills submitted by plaintiff Daniel Kim’s Acupuncture P.C. totaling $1,860.56, adequately established that said plaintiff sent, and that defendant received, these respective claims (see A.B. Med. Servs. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 3 Misc 3d 136[A], 2004 NY Slip Op 50507[U] [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2004]).{**7 Misc 3d at 16} There was also proper proof of mailing of the claim for $935 submitted by plaintiff Somun Acupuncture P.C. (see Amaze Med. Supply v Allstate Ins. Co., 3 [*2]Misc 3d 133[A], 2004 NY Slip Op 50447[U] [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2004]).

While an insurer’s failure to timely pay or deny the claim within the 30-day statutory period precludes it from asserting most defenses (see Presbyterian Hosp. in City of N.Y. v Maryland Cas. Co., 90 NY2d 274, 282 [1997]), the apparently timely denial of plaintiff A.B. Medical’s claim for $1,972.08 does not relieve defendant from the necessity of submitting proof in admissible form in opposition to plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (see e.g. A.B. Med. Servs. PLLC v Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co., 4 Misc 3d 86 [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2004]).

The court denied plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment on the ground that plaintiffs did not submit admissible proof authenticating the signature of plaintiffs’ assignor on the assignment forms. However, the lack of authentication of the assignor’s signature, in and of itself, does not constitute a defect in the absence of any statutory or regulatory requirement for the same (A.B. Med. Servs. PLLC v Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 6 Misc 3d 70 [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2004]). Even assuming arguendo that a lack of authentication constitutes a cognizable defect, defendant’s failure to seek verification of the assignments, or to allege any deficiency in the assignments in its denial of claim forms, constitutes a waiver of any defenses with respect thereto (see id.; New York Hosp. Med. Ctr. of Queens v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 8 AD3d 640 [2004]; Presbyterian Hosp. v Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 233 AD2d 433 [1996]; Park Health Ctr. v Eveready Ins. Co., 2001 NY Slip Op 40665[U] [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2001]).

We note that the revised insurance regulations, applicable to claims submitted on or after April 5, 2002, “no longer permit the assignment to health care providers of benefits for non-health-related services (typically housekeeping and transportation expenses) (11 NYCRR 65-3.11 [a]; Insurance Law § 5102 [a] [1])” (Matter of Medical Socy. of State of N.Y. v Serio, 100 NY2d 854, 871 [2003]). Accordingly, while “[s]uch reasonable and necessary expenses remain reimbursable (see Insurance Law § 5102 [a] [3] . . . [they are] nonassignable” (id.). The record herein indicates that plaintiff Square Synagogue Transportation Inc. submitted its transportation costs prior to the effective date of the revised regulations.

Despite its untimely denial of most of plaintiffs’ claims, defendant is not precluded from asserting the defense that the alleged injuries do not arise out of a covered accident (see Central Gen. Hosp. v Chubb Group of Ins. Cos., 90 NY2d 195, 201 [1997]). The affidavit submitted by defendant’s litigation coordinator, and the accompanying examinations under oath, were sufficient to demonstrate that defendant’s denial was based upon a “founded belief that the alleged injur[ies] do[ ] not arise out of an insured incident” (Central Gen. Hosp., 90 NY2d at 199). Accordingly, since defendant demonstrated the existence of a triable issue of fact as to whether there was a lack of coverage {**7 Misc 3d at 17}(see id.; Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557 [1980]), plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment was properly denied.

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

Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County

070376/04

Eileen N. Nadelson, J.

Plaintiff, a medical provider, instituted this action to recover first party no-fault benefits from Defendant insurer. Plaintiff moved for summary judgment, alleging that Defendant neither paid nor denied the claim within the statutorily mandated thirty-day period after receipt of the claims. Ins. Law sec. 5106; Regulations sec. 65-3.8.

Defendant, in opposition, claimed that the denials were timely on their face; however, Plaintiff argued that Defendant failed to provide legally sufficient proof of mailing the subject denials within the thirty-day period.

Defendant’s proof of mailing consists of an affidavit from one of its employees who states that it is part of her regular duties and responsibilities to handle claims filed for no-fault benefits. The affidavit goes on to state that she reviewed the records of the instant claim and based on that review, has determined that the denial was mailed on the date appearing on the denial form. She finally states that, “as per the regular course of business of this office, the bill was timely denied .” [*2]

The question before the court, one that has caused much confusion and litigation, is the information that must appear on an affidavit of mailing to meet the requirements of New York’s no-fault law to evidence a proper proof of mailing.

Generally, proof of proper mailing gives rise to a presumption that the item was received by the addressee. This presumption may be created by either proof of actual mailing or proof of a standard office practice or procedure designed to ensure that items are properly addressed and mailed. Residential Holding Corp. v. Scottsdale Insurance Co., 286 A.D> 2d 679, 729 NYS2d 776 (2d Dept. 2001).

In A & S Medical, P.C. v. Allstate Insurance Co., 2002 NY Slip Op. 50121(U) (1st Dept. 2002), the Plaintiff established proof of mailing the claim by an affidavit of one of its employees who actually placed the application in an envelop and then mailed the envelop at the post office herself by return receipt certified mail. This Plaintiff further presented the postal receipts, which the court concluded constituted proof of mailing the claim. In this case, the court further adduced that the defendant’s affidavit of an employee who reviewed the file and concluded that the claim was not received was inadequate to rebut the presumption of the plaintiff’s mailing of the claim.

Proof of proper mailing requires evidence of actual mailing or a standard office practice or procedure designed to ensure that the items are properly addressed and received. Affidavits that make no reference to the specifics of the office mailing practice or procedure, which merely aver that the bills were mailed within the statutory time period, are insufficient to establish proof of actual mailing. Comprehensive Medical v. Lumbermens Mutual Insurance Co., 4 Misc 3d 133(A) (NY Sup. App. Term 2004).

Consequently, in order to meet its burden of proving that denials were mailed within the thirty-day period, an insurer must attach an affidavit of an employee who personally mailed the denial or, conversely, the affidavit of an employee with personal knowledge of the office’s mailing practices and procedures, who describes those practices or procedures in detail, indicating how he or she acquired the knowledge of such practices or procedures, and whose personal review of the file indicates that those practices or procedures were followed with respect to the claim under review.

In the instant case, Defendant has failed to meet its burden of proving that the denials were mailed within the thirty-day period because the affidavit of its employee with respect to the mailing is legally deficient. The employee states that she is familiar with the office practices and procedures, but neglects to specify the details of those procedures. The affiant fails to state how she became familiar with these procedures, and her “personal knowledge’ consists merely of a review of the files, without stating at what point in the claim process she reviewed those files or the basis for her belief that regular office procedures were followed. Without sufficient substantiation that the denials were in fact mailed on the date claimed, the court must find for Plaintiff. [*3]

Summary judgment is awarded to Plaintiff. The clerk of the court is ordered to enter judgment in favor of Plaintiff in the amount of $1,181.63, plus statutory interest, costs, and attorney fees.

Dated: January 17, 2005

__________________________

EILEEN N. NADELSON, J.C.C.

—[*1]

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 to permanently stay arbitration of a claim for uninsured motorist benefits, Mimose Henry appeals (1) from an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Bergerman, J.), dated April 22, 2003, which granted the petition and permanently stayed the arbitration, and (2), as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the same court dated October 7, 2003, as, upon reargument, adhered to the prior determination.

Ordered that the appeal from the order dated April 22, 2003, is dismissed, as that order was superseded by the order dated October 7, 2003, made upon reargument; and it is further,

Ordered that the order dated October 7, 2003, is affirmed insofar as appealed from; and it is further,

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

A claimant seeking uninsured motorist benefits is required to “give notice to his or her insurer within the time limit provided in the insurance policy or within a reasonable time under all the circumstances” as a condition precedent to the insurer’s liability (Matter of Allstate Ins. Co. v Kashkin, 130 AD2d 744, 745 [1987]; see Security Mut. Ins. Co. of N.Y. v Acker-Fitzsimons Corp., 31 NY2d 436, 440 [1972]; Matter of Eagle Ins. Co. v Garcia, 280 AD2d 476, 477 [2001]; Matter of Nationwide Ins. Co. v Bietsch, 224 AD2d 623 [1996]). Absent a valid excuse, the failure to satisfy the notice requirement [*2]of an insurance policy vitiates coverage (see Matter of Eagle Ins. Co. v Garcia, supra; Matter of Nationwide Ins. Co. v Bietsch, supra; Matter of Allstate Ins. Co. v Kashkin, supra). Contrary to the claimant’s contention, the correspondence between her attorney and the petitioner insurance company, and her submission of an application for no-fault benefits, did not provide the insurance company with the requisite notice of her claim for uninsured motorist benefits (see Matter of Country-Wide Ins. Co. [Eun Kyu Park], 277 AD2d 175 [2000]; Matter of Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v Wexler, 276 AD2d 490 [2000]; Matter of Nationwide Ins. Co. v Bietsch, supra at 624). Moreover, the claimant did not offer a valid excuse for her failure to give the insurance company timely notice. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the petition to stay arbitration. H. Miller, J.P., Krausman, Goldstein and Skelos, JJ., concur.

—[*1]

Mugglin, J. Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Demarest, J.), entered January 22, 2004 in St. Lawrence County, which, inter alia, granted defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

On August 12, 2000, plaintiff suffered an injury to his right knee when he was struck by an automobile driven by defendant’s insured. Nine days later, on his application for no-fault benefits, plaintiff correctly reported that he was not employed, had lost no time from work and was not receiving unemployment insurance benefits. Plaintiff did report, however, that he had lost time looking for work. Plaintiff’s subsequent claim for lost wages was denied by defendant on December 15, 2000 and, in January 2001, plaintiff sued for the lost-wage claim.

In March 2001, plaintiff took an examination for entry into the State Police. He was notified in June 2001 that he had passed. Because plaintiff’s doctor was fearful that plaintiff could not pass the State Police physical exam, plaintiff sought deferment. When that was granted, plaintiff had his knee surgically repaired and, after a period of rehabilitation, passed the physical exam in April 2003 and entered the State Police Academy.

Asserting that his injury delayed his employment in the State Police and his expected earnings as a trooper exceeded the actual salary he earned during the period, plaintiff sought [*2]summary judgment for approximately $24,000 on his lost-wage claim. Defendant cross-moved for summary judgment dismissing the claim on the basis that it was too speculative. Supreme Court granted the cross motion and plaintiff appeals.

Plaintiff argues that Insurance Law § 5102 (a) (2) as supplemented by 11 NYCRR 65-3.16 (b) (3) mandates reversal. We disagree and affirm. Insurance Law § 5102 (a) (2) provides that an individual who makes a claim under the no-fault provision be compensated for “[l]oss of earnings from work which the person would have performed had he not been injured” (Kurcsics v Merchants Mut. Ins. Co., 49 NY2d 451, 458 [1980]). Moreover, 11 NYCRR 65-3.16 (b) (3), in interpreting the statute, states that the “[l]oss of earnings from work shall not necessarily be limited to the applicant’s level of earnings at the time of the accident, but may also include demonstrated future earnings reasonably projected.” However, it is clear that the intent of the Legislature is “to compensate the accident victim for the earnings he or she would have, in fact, realized” at the time of the accident (Kurcsics v Merchants Mut. Ins. Co., supra at 457).

It is our view that the language of both the statute and the regulation contemplates a degree of certainty in the calculation of lost wages and they apply to reimburse a claimant for wages actually lost from employment engaged in at the time of the accident and those lost wages from that employment can be increased if the claimant can demonstrate a reasonable projection that his or her future earnings from said employment will increase (see Herman v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 115 Misc 2d 146, 149 [1982]). Here, that degree of certainty is entirely lacking. Plaintiff’s entry into the State Police Academy and its deferral as a result of the knee injury could not have been reasonably contemplated by either party at the time of the accident, rendering his claim entirely speculative.

Crew III, J.P., Carpinello, Rose and Lahtinen, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs. [See 2 Misc 3d 945.]

—[*1]

Mercure, J.P. Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Reilly, Jr., J.), entered December 5, 2003 in Schenectady County, which granted petitioner’s application pursuant to CPLR 7503 to stay arbitration between the parties.

After allegedly sustaining injuries in a May 1998 automobile accident, respondent Geraldine Celebucki filed a claim for no-fault insurance benefits with petitioner in July 1998. Celebucki thereafter notified petitioner of her intent to file an additional claim for supplementary underinsured motorist (hereinafter SUM) coverage pursuant to the terms of her existing automobile insurance policy with petitioner. In February 2002, petitioner disclaimed coverage of the SUM claim on the ground that Celebucki had failed to notify it of her intent to seek such benefits until November 2001, approximately 3½ years after the date of the accident. Contending that petitioner had actually received such notice in August 1998, respondents filed a demand for arbitration. Supreme Court granted petitioner’s subsequent CPLR 7503 petition to permanently stay arbitration, prompting this appeal.

We affirm. In our view, Supreme Court properly held that Celebucki failed to provide petitioner with notice of her SUM claim “[a]s soon as practicable,” a requirement of her SUM [*2]policy (see generally Matter of Metropolitan Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v Mancuso, 93 NY2d 487 [1999]). Although respondents contend that such notice was provided by letter from respondents’ counsel in August 1998, petitioner presented the affidavits of a claims representative who stated that no such letter was located in Celebucki’s file. Indeed, there is no evidence in the record, apart from the unsubstantiated assertion of respondents’ counsel that he “did cause to execute and forward” said letter, to validate respondents’ claim. Notably, respondents failed to offer any proof of regular mailing procedures and office practices “geared to ensure the proper addressing or mailing of this letter,” thus entitling them to a rebuttable presumption of receipt by petitioner (Matter of Phoenix Ins. Co. v Tasch, 306 AD2d 288, 288 [2003]; see Nassau Ins. Co. v Murray, 46 NY2d 828, 829-830 [1978]). Accordingly, we agree with Supreme Court that timely written notice of the SUM claim was never provided and arbitration was properly stayed.

Spain, Mugglin, Lahtinen and Kane, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs.