—[*1] Basch & Keegan, L.L.P., Kingston (Derek J. Spada of counsel), for appellant.

Finder & Cuomo, L.L.P., New York City (Paul L. Meli of counsel), for respondent.

Spain, J. Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Czajka, J.), entered January 8, 2007 in Columbia County, which, among other things, denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment.

The facts are undisputed. On May 29, 2005, plaintiff was a passenger in a car driven by his friend and owned by plaintiff’s mother. They stopped for gas and, while plaintiff was pumping gasoline, the gas pump nozzle popped out of the car’s fuel tank, causing some gasoline to spill on the ground and, unbeknownst to him, on his clothing. Plaintiff then entered the gas station store to purchase a pack of cigarettes. Shortly after leaving the gas station in the vehicle, plaintiff attempted to light a cigarette, causing the gasoline on his clothing to ignite. As a result, he suffered severe burns to the right side of his body, right arm and leg.

Defendant denied plaintiff’s claim for no-fault insurance benefits on the ground that his injuries did not arise out of the use or operation of a motor vehicle (see Insurance Law § 5102 [b]; § 5103 [a] [1]). Plaintiff then commenced the instant action in Supreme Court seeking to recover no-fault insurance benefits. After discovery was completed, plaintiff moved for summary judgment on the issue of his entitlement to no-fault insurance benefits and defendant cross-moved for a declaratory judgment that defendant has no obligation to plaintiff. Supreme Court granted defendant’s cross motion and denied plaintiff’s motion. Plaintiff now appeals.

No-fault insurance benefits are payable only if a person’s injury “aris[es] out of the use [*2]or operation of a motor vehicle” (Insurance Law § 5102 [b]; see § 5103 [a] [1]). Inasmuch as “[t]he vehicle must be a proximate cause of the injury before the absolute liability imposed by the statute arises” (Walton v Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co., 88 NY2d 211, 215 [1996]), we agree with Supreme Court’s conclusion that plaintiff’s injuries—sustained when he attempted to light a cigarette, igniting gasoline that he had spilled on his clothing—did not arise out of the use of the vehicle. Indeed, plaintiff’s injuries would have occurred even if he had never reentered the vehicle and his friend had driven away (see Sullivan v Barry Scott Agency, Inc., 23 AD3d 889, 890 [2005]; cf. Matter of Farm Family Cas. Ins. Co. [Trapani], 301 AD2d 740, 741-742 [2003]). Thus, although plaintiff’s injuries occurred while he was inside the moving vehicle, because “the vehicle itself was not a cause of the damage,” he is not entitled to no-fault benefits (Walton v Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co., 88 NY2d at 215; see Sullivan v Barry Scott Agency, Inc., 23 AD3d at 890, Sochinski v Bankers & Shippers Ins. Co., 221 AD2d 889 [1995]).

Mercure, J.P., Peters, Malone Jr. and Stein, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

APPELLATE TERM: 2nd and 11th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Diane A. Lebedeff, J.), entered August 28, 2007, deemed from a judgment of said court entered September 26, 2007 (see CPLR 5512 [a]; Neuman v Otto, 114 AD2d 791 [1985]). The judgment, entered pursuant to the August 28, 2007 order granting plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $740.25.

Judgment affirmed without costs.

In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, plaintiff moved for summary judgment, asserting, among other things, that defendant had failed to timely deny the claim. The court granted plaintiff’s motion, holding that the statutory time period in which defendant had to pay or deny the claim was not tolled because defendant’s follow-up verification request letter was premature. The instant appeal by defendant ensued.

Since defendant raises no issue on appeal with respect to plaintiff’s establishment of its prima facie entitlement to summary judgment, we do not pass on the propriety of the determination of the court below with respect thereto.

In opposition to plaintiff’s motion, defendant argued that the statutory time period in which it had to pay or deny the claim was tolled due to the assignor’s delay in appearing for an examination under oath (EUO). However, contrary to defendant’s contention, the September 19, 2006 letter did not constitute a proper request for verification since it neither demanded nor required a response (see New York & Presbyt. Hosp. v Eagle Ins. Co., 17 AD3d 646 [2005]; Englinton Med. P.C. v MVAIC, 14 Misc 3d 135[A], 2007 NY Slip Op 50164[U] [App Term, 2d [*2]& 11th Jud Dists 2007]). Consequently, the 30-day claim determination period (see Insurance Department Regulations [11 NYCRR] § 65-3.8 [c]) was not tolled, and defendant’s denial of claim form was untimely. As a result, defendant was precluded from raising most defenses, including its proffered defense of lack of medical necessity (see Presbyterian Hosp. in City of N.Y. v Maryland Cas. Co., 90 NY2d 274, 282 [1997]). Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

In view of the foregoing, we pass on no other issue.

Pesce, P.J., Weston Patterson and Rios, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: November 05, 2008

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

APPELLATE TERM: 2nd and 11th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Dolores L. Waltrous, J.), entered May 3, 2007. The order, insofar as appealed from as limited by the brief, denied plaintiff’s motion for a protective order and granted defendant’s cross motion to strike the complaint or, in the alternative, to compel discovery, to the extent of directing plaintiff to comply with all outstanding discovery demands and to appear for an examination before trial.

Order, insofar as appealed from, modified by providing that defendant’s cross motion is granted only to the extent of compelling plaintiff to produce the documents requested in the first, eighth through fourteenth, sixteenth and eighteenth numbered paragraphs of defendant’s demand for discovery and inspection within 60 days of the date of the order entered hereon and that, within 30 days after such production, plaintiff shall appear for an examination before trial; as so modified, affirmed without costs.

In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, defendant served plaintiff with combined discovery demands, including a demand for discovery and inspection and a notice of examination before trial (EBT). Subsequently, plaintiff moved, inter alia, for a protective order, and defendant cross-moved to strike the complaint or, in the alternative, to compel plaintiff to appear for an EBT and to produce the documents requested in its demand for discovery and inspection. The court below denied plaintiff’s motion for a [*2]protective order and granted defendant’s cross motion to the extent of directing plaintiff to comply with all outstanding discovery demands and to appear for an EBT. This appeal by plaintiff ensued.

Since plaintiff failed to challenge the propriety of defendant’s demand for discovery and inspection within the time prescribed by CPLR 3122, it is obligated to produce the information sought therein except as to matters which are privileged or palpably improper (see Fausto v County of Nassau, 17 AD3d 520 [2005]; Garcia v Jomber Realty, 264 AD2d 809 [1999]; Great Wall Acupuncture v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 20 Misc 3d 136[A], 2008 NY Slip Op 51529[U] [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2008]; A.B. Med. Servs. PLLC v Utica Mut. Ins. Co., 11 Misc 3d 71 [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2006]). In the absence of any claim of privilege, the only issue for this court’s review is whether defendant’s requests for documents in said demand were palpably improper (see Saratoga Harness Racing v Roemer, 274 AD2d 887 [2000]).

Where a discovery demand concerns matters relating to a defense which a defendant is precluded from raising, it is palpably improper, notwithstanding the fact that the plaintiff did not specifically object thereto (see A.B. Med. Servs. PLLC, 11 Misc 3d 71). As defendant did not establish that it timely denied plaintiff’s claims, to the extent defendant seeks discovery in support of its defense of lack of medical necessity, discovery of such precluded matter is palpably improper (see id.).

In State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v Mallela (4 NY3d 313 [2005]), the Court of Appeals held that an insurer may withhold payment to a medical services provider if the provider is fraudulently incorporated, without regard to whether the medical services were unnecessary or improper. In the instant case, the record reveals that defendant set forth detailed and specific reasons for believing that plaintiff may be ineligible to recover no-fault benefits as a fraudulently incorporated professional service corporation, a defense which is not precluded (see Midborough Acupuncture, P.C. v State Farm Ins. Co., Misc 3d , 2008 NY Slip Op 28291 [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2008]). To the extent that defendant seeks production of, inter alia, plaintiff’s certificate of incorporation, management documents, and medical licenses of plaintiff’s shareholders, such discovery is material and necessary to defendant’s contention that plaintiff is ineligible for reimbursement of no-fault benefits (see CPLR 3101 [a]; One Beacon Ins. Group, LLC v Midland Med. Care, P.C., AD3d [2d Dept, Sept. 9, 2008]; Great Wall Acupuncture, 20 Misc 3d 136[A], 2008 NY Slip Op 51529[U]). Accordingly, defendant is entitled to production of the documents sought in paragraphs 1, 8 through 14, 16 and 18 of defendant’s demand for discovery and inspection.

With respect to that portion of the order which directed plaintiff to appear for an EBT, plaintiff has failed to assert any viable reason for its contention that said EBT should not be held. Since defendant’s defense to this action is based upon plaintiff’s alleged ineligibility to recover reimbursement of assigned no-fault benefits (see Mallela, 4 NY3d 313), it is entitled to such EBT (see CPLR 3101 [a]).

Pesce, P.J., Weston Patterson and Rios, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: November 05, 2008

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, First District (Gary Franklin Knobel, J.), dated March 1, 2007. The order granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and denied defendant’s cross 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 and defendant cross-moved for summary judgment. The court below granted plaintiff’s motion and denied defendant’s cross motion. The instant appeal by defendant ensued.

On appeal, defendant contends that the affidavit by the biller employed by a third party, submitted in support of plaintiff’s motion, failed to lay a proper foundation for the documents annexed to the moving papers and that, as a result, plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case (see 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]). We decline to consider this argument since it is raised for the first time on appeal and is therefore unpreserved (cf. Bath Med. Supply, Inc. v Deerbrook Ins. Co., 14 Misc 3d 135[A], 2007 NY Slip Op 50179[U] [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2007]). Accordingly, we do not pass upon the propriety of the determination of [*2]the court below with respect to plaintiff’s establishment of its prima facie case.

In opposition to plaintiff’s motion and in support of its cross motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the complaint as premature on the ground that plaintiff had failed to respond to its verification requests (see Westchester Med. Ctr. v Countrywide Ins. Co., 45 AD3d 676 [2007]), defendant argued that notwithstanding the fact that it had received plaintiff’s hospital facility form (NYS Form NF-5), verification was still outstanding because it had received neither an application for motor vehicle no-fault benefits nor a completed assignment of benefits form. Contrary to defendant’s contention, an insurer must accept a completed hospital facility form submitted by a provider of health services in lieu of a prescribed application for motor vehicle no-fault benefits (see Insurance Department Regulations [11 NYCRR] § 65-3.5 [g]; see also Nyack Hosp. v Encompass Ins. Co., 23 AD3d 535, 536 [2005]; Nyack Hosp. v Allstate Ins. Co., 13 Misc 3d 139[A], 2006 NY Slip Op 52233[U] [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2006]). Moreover, defendant admitted having received the hospital facility form (which included an assignment) on October 6, 2005, and did not request verification of the assignment until December 23, 2005. Accordingly, defendant failed to establish that it timely requested verification with respect to the assignment (see Westchester Med. Ctr. v Countrywide Ins. Co., 45 AD3d 676 [2007], supra), and consequently failed to demonstrate its entitlement to verification of the assignment (id.).

Since defendant failed to raise a triable issue of fact in opposition to plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and failed to set forth a prima facie case with respect to its cross motion for summary judgment, the court below properly granted plaintiff’s motion and denied defendant’s cross motion. The order is therefore affirmed.

Rudolph, P.J., McCabe and Tanenbaum, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: November 05, 2008

[*1]

Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County, November 5, 2008

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

Bruno Gerbino & Soriano, LLP, Melville, for defendant. Gary Tsirelman P.C., Brooklyn, for plaintiff.

{**22 Misc 3d at 724} OPINION OF THE COURT

George J. Silver, J.

In this action to recover first-party no-fault benefits, interest and attorney’s fees pursuant to New York’s Insurance Law and no-fault regulations, defendant Utica Mutual Insurance Company moves, pursuant to CPLR 3212, for an order granting it summary judgment dismissing plaintiff Allstate Social Work and Psychological Services, PLLC’s complaint on the ground that plaintiff’s assignors failed to appear for properly scheduled independent medical examinations (hereinafter IMEs) and examinations under oath (hereinafter EUOs) and thus failed to comply with conditions precedent of the insurance policy.

Chad LaPlate, defendant’s no-fault specialist, avers that defendant’s Special Investigative Unit (hereinafter SIU) investigated the motor vehicle accident that allegedly occurred on May 23, 2003 and which gave rise to the instant claims. As a result of that investigation, defendant’s SIU determined that the alleged loss was the result of an intentional act and that material misrepresentations had been made in the presentation of the claims. Defendant thereafter assigned the claims to Hudson Valley Medical Consultants (hereinafter HVMC) for the scheduling of IMEs of plaintiff’s assignors. Jennifer Harvey, an employee of HVMC, avers that HVMC is an entity that is involved in the scheduling of IMEs on behalf of insurance companies. According to Ms. Harvey, HVMC acts as an intermediary between the insurance company and the examining physician, dentist or psychologist by scheduling IME appointments and then securing the IME report from the examining doctor. Ms. Harvey avers that the psychological IMEs of the assignors were scheduled with Moses Weksler, Ph.D., for August 27, 2003. The letters scheduling the IMEs were prepared and signed by Ms. Harvey and mailed on August 15, 2003. Ms. Harvey states that it is HVMC’s procedure to have an employee prepare and print the IME scheduling letter and the address label for each scheduled IME. The employee ensures that the address label is correct, places the scheduling letter in the envelope, affixes the address label to the envelope and applies the proper postage. The envelopes containing the scheduling letters are placed in an official postal repository on a daily basis. Helen Sickler, the office manager for Moses Weksler, Ph.D., states in her affidavit that neither assignor appeared at Dr. Weksler’s Brooklyn office on August 27, 2003 and that the assignors’ nonappearances were reported to HVMC. On August 28, 2007, Ms. Harvey{**22 Misc 3d at 725} scheduled a second IME for both assignors to be held on September 11, 2003, again at Dr. Weksler’s Brooklyn office. According to Ms. Sickler, both assignors again failed to appear at Dr. Weksler’s office. On October 9, 2003 defendant issued two denials, one for each assignor, denying plaintiff’s claims due to the failure of the assignors to appear for the two scheduled psychological IMEs.

Defendant thereafter retained the law firm of Bruno, Gerbino & Soriano, LLP to schedule and conduct EUOs of defendant’s insured, the driver of the motor vehicle and the assignors. According to defendant’s attorney, EUOs were duly scheduled for October 7, 2003, October 10, 2003, October 28, 2003 and December 23, 2003. The assignors failed to attend the EUOs and on January 29, 2004 defendant issued a second set of denials based upon the assignors’ nonappearances.

In opposition, plaintiff argues that defendant has failed to establish that the assignors violated the policy conditions by failing to appear for the psychological IMEs because, under the express unambiguous terms of the insurance contract, the assignors were only obligated to submit to a medical examination by a physician. Plaintiff contends that licensed psychologists like Dr. Weksler are not physicians as the term is defined by the Education Law, therefore the assignors’ failure to appear for the scheduled IMEs was not a violation of the insurance policy and defendant’s denial of plaintiff’s claims was improper. Plaintiff raises no issue as to the sufficiency of defendant’s proof that the IME request letters were mailed by HVMC in accordance with a standard office practice and procedure and in accordance with the time periods delineated in the no-fault regulations. Nor does plaintiff challenge the sufficiency of defendant’s proof of the assignors’ nonappearances at the IMEs.

Plaintiff further contends that the EUO scheduling letters dated September 30, 2003, October 1, 2003 and October 13, 2003 are defective on their face because they failed to inform the assignors that they would be reimbursed for any loss of earnings or reasonable transportation expenses incurred in complying with the requests. Plaintiff also argues that the December 10, 2003 EUO scheduling letter is defective because the defendant improperly scheduled the EUOs to be held in Melville, New York, which plaintiff argues was not reasonably convenient to the assignors who reside in Brooklyn. In the alternative, plaintiff argues that if the language of the December 10, 2003 EUO scheduling letter is sufficient, the letter should{**22 Misc 3d at 726} be treated as a first request for additional verification. Since defendant failed to issue a follow-up request to the December 10, 2003 scheduling letter, plaintiff contends, defendant failed to comply with the follow-up verification requirements outlined in the regulations. Finally, plaintiff informs the court that it did not cross-move for summary judgment “due to insufficient time to file the motion”^[FN1] but nevertheless requests that the court search the record and grant summary judgment in its favor.

Defendant argues in reply that this court previously denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. Defendant also concedes that Dr. Weksler is not a physician as defined by the Education Law but argues that the endorsement’s definition of “medical expense” includes all professional health services, not only medical services provided by physicians. Since the legislature included medical expenses for all professional health services as part of covered basic economic loss, defendant reasons, it also intended to permit any health care provider to perform IMEs.

Analysis

“Pursuant to Insurance Law § 5103 (d), the Legislature empowered the Superintendent of Insurance to promulgate regulations establishing minimum benefit standards for policies of insurance providing coverage for the payment of first-party benefits and to set standards for the payment of first-party benefits by self-insurers. Pursuant to this authority, the Superintendent promulgated Insurance Department Regulations (11 NYCRR) § 65-1.1, which sets forth the basic form of the ‘Mandatory Personal Injury Protection Endorsement’ which must be included in every owner’s policy of liability insurance issued on a motor vehicle in this state” (Alleviation Supplies Inc. v Enterprise Rent-A-Car, 12 Misc 3d 787, 790 [Civ Ct, Richmond County 2006]).

The mandatory personal injury protection endorsement (hereinafter endorsement) provides, in pertinent part, that the “eligible injured person shall submit to medical examination by physicians selected by, or acceptable to, the Company, when, and as often as, the Company may reasonably require” (11 NYCRR 65-1.1 [d] [Conditions] [Proof of Claim; Medical, Work Loss, and{**22 Misc 3d at 727} Other Necessary Expenses]).^[FN2] The appearance of the insured for IMEs at any time is a condition precedent to the insurer’s liability on the policy (Stephen Fogel Psychological, P.C. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 35 AD3d 720 [2d Dept 2006]). The term physician is not defined in the endorsement but the Education Law provides that “[o]nly a person licensed or otherwise authorized under this article shall practice medicine or use the title ‘physician’ ” (Education Law § 6522). Defendant concedes in its reply that a licensed psychologist such as Dr. Weksler is not a physician. The question then is may any health provider perform an IME of an eligible injured person or, as the endorsement appears to require, only a physician?

Though there appears to be no case law addressing the point, in an opinion letter dated March 12, 2004, the State Insurance Department answered the following question:

“When a No-Fault eligible person is being treated by a chiropractor and the person’s insurer has requested a medical examination (‘IME’) of that person in order to evaluate the medical necessity of the chiropractic services performed, must the medical examination be performed by a chiropractor, or may it be performed by a medical doctor?” (2004 Ops Gen Counsel NY Ins Dept No. 04-03-10.)

In holding that an “insurer’s medical examination of an eligible injured person to evaluate the medical necessity of health services provided by a chiropractor may be performed by a medical doctor, and need not be performed by a licensed chiropractor” (id.) the Insurance Department stated “[t]here is no requirement in the regulation that a claim denial must be based upon a medical examination conducted by a health provider of the same speciality area as the treating health provider” (id.). Implicit in the Insurance Department’s interpretation, which is entitled to great deference unless it is “irrational or unreasonable” (Matter of John Paterno, Inc. v Curiale, 88 NY2d 328, 333 [1996], quoting Matter of New York Pub. Interest Research Group v New York State Dept. of Ins., 66 NY2d 444, 448 [1985]; cf. Matter of Gaines v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 90 NY2d 545, 548-549 [1997]), is that an independent medical examination of an eligible injured person may be performed either by a physician, as the term is defined in the Education Law and used in the endorsement, or by any other{**22 Misc 3d at 728} licensed health provider selected by or acceptable to the insurer. It is for the court or an arbitrator to “consider the qualifications of the health provider performing the IME in determining the validity of a claim denial” (2004 Ops Gen Counsel NY Ins Dept No. 04-03-10). A contrary conclusion would frustrate the core objective of the no-fault scheme by limiting the universe of health providers who could perform IMEs, thereby delaying the processing of no-fault claims (see Stephen Fogel Psychological, P.C. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 35 AD3d 720 [2006]).

The affidavits submitted by defendant are sufficient to establish that defendant’s initial IME requests, its follow-up IME requests and its denial of claim were mailed pursuant to a standard office practice and procedure, and that the assignors failed to appear for the IMEs (Quality Health Prods., P.C. v Progressive Ins. Co., 20 Misc 3d 143[A], 2008 NY Slip Op 51757[U] [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2008]; Post Traumatic Med. Care, P.C. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 21 Misc 3d 128[A], 2008 NY Slip Op 51954[U] [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2008]). The court, therefore, need not address plaintiff’s arguments concerning the sufficiency of defendant’s EUO requests.

Accordingly, it is hereby ordered that defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiff’s complaint is granted.

Footnotes

Footnote 1: See attorney’s affirmation in opposition.

Footnote 2: Since the endorsement is promulgated by the Superintendent of Insurance, and is not drafted by the insurer, plaintiff’s argument that any ambiguity in the endorsement must be construed against the insurer is incorrect.

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

APPELLATE TERM: 2nd and 11th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Kathy J. King, J.), entered May 18, 2007. 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. In opposition, defendant argued that there was an issue of fact as to medical necessity. The court below denied plaintiff’s motion on the grounds that it failed to prove its prima facie entitlement to summary judgment inasmuch as plaintiff failed to prove that the claim forms were submitted to defendant and because the supporting affidavit did not establish that it was based upon the affiant’s personal knowledge of plaintiff’s standard office practices and procedures. The instant appeal by plaintiff ensued.

A provider generally 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 [*2]Barshay, D.C., P.C. v State Farm Ins. Co., 14 Misc 3d 74 [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2006]). In addition, a review of the record indicates that plaintiff’s affidavit sufficed to establish 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]). Consequently, the record establishes plaintiff’s prima facie entitlement to summary judgment.

Contrary to plaintiff’s contention, defendant, through the submission of the affidavit of its claims representative and the affirmed peer review, established that plaintiff’s claims were properly and timely denied based upon a lack of medical necessity (see A.B. Med. Servs., PLLC v Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 39 AD3d 779 [2007]; 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]; 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]). Accordingly, the order denying plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is affirmed, albeit on other grounds.

Pesce, P.J., Weston Patterson and Rios, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: October 31, 2008

[*1]

City Court of Poughkeepsie, October 31, 2008

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

Spiegel, Brown, Fichera & Acard, Poughkeepsie (Michael A. Cote of counsel), for plaintiff. D’Ambrosio & D’Ambrosio, P.C., Irvington (James J. D’Ambrosio of counsel), for defendant.

{**22 Misc 3d at 229} OPINION OF THE COURT

Katherine A. Moloney, J.

The plaintiff is seeking an order to compel disclosure pursuant to CPLR 3124. Plaintiff’s motion is supported by the affirmation of Michael A. Cote, Esq., dated August 19, 2008, which alleges that the defendant has failed to disclose, despite due demand, all medical records relating to the scanned body parts as well as all independent medical examination reports of the assignor in this case. Plaintiff’s motion is also accompanied by a memorandum of law dated August 19, 2008. The defendant has filed opposition to the motion to compel supported by the affirmation of James J. D’Ambrosio, Esq., dated September 17, 2008. The defendant alleges that the defendant has complied with the plaintiff’s discovery demands in accordance with the law and that the plaintiff is seeking additional discovery for which it is not entitled. Defendant alleges that the information plaintiff seeks is irrelevant in assisting plaintiff to prove its prima facie case and irrelevant as to the defense of the case, for they are reports which cannot be used by the defendant at trial.

Now, upon reading the notice of motion, the supporting affirmation, the memorandum of law, the defendant’s opposition papers and the accompanying exhibits, and due deliberation having been held thereon, this court determines as follows:

Facts, Analysis and Determination

The plaintiff is a radiological medical provider who accepted no-fault assignment of benefits from the defendant’s insured and conducted diagnostic testing upon the insured. The plaintiff is seeking reimbursement for medical services provided by the diagnostic testing, and the defendant has denied reimbursement. On December 18, 2007, the plaintiff filed a summons and complaint seeking to recover reimbursement of the medical services in the amount of $1,263.37 provided to the defendant’s insured.

During the course of this lawsuit, on June 4, 2008, the plaintiff served upon the defendant a demand for discovery and inspection. More specifically, the plaintiff sought copies of all medical records received by the defendant regarding the assignor’s cervical and lumbar spine and [*2]copies of any no-fault medical examinations and peer review reports relating to said claim. Plaintiff claims that the defendant has refused to comply with said demands to date, and relies upon this court’s prior rulings in MD Imaging v GEICO, DRA Imaging v GEICO, and DRA Imaging v State Farm Ins. to support the instant motion.{**22 Misc 3d at 230}

In response, the defendant opposes the motion on the basis that it has fully complied with the plaintiff’s discovery demands as required by law and asks this court to reconsider its prior ruling as set forth in the three aforementioned cases. In support of this, defendant has delineated that its discovery responses to the plaintiff included a copy of the peer review and all of the documentation reviewed by the peer review doctor. (Defendant’s affirmation in opposition dated Sept. 17, 2008.) Moreover, defendant argues that the plaintiff is simply not entitled to receive the additional documentation or information it seeks because it is irrelevant to the prosecution and the defense of the action. Finally, defendant argues that plaintiff has failed to demonstrate its entitlement to receive the discovery it seeks. (D’Ambrosio affirmation dated Sept. 17, 2008.) More specifically defendant argues that plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that it is legally authorized (as an assignee) to obtain any of the assignor’s medical records, in that the plaintiff has failed to provide an assignment of benefits form or an authorization signed by the assignor establishing entitlement to said records. (D’Ambrosio affirmation dated Sept. 17, 2008.)

The Uniform City Court Act adopts for the city courts all of the disclosure procedures set forth in article 31 of the CPLR. (UCCA 1101 [a].) Although disclosure is construed liberally, the question of what falls within the scope of permissible discovery evidence is not unlimited, rather such is left to the discretion of the court. (See Casabona v Huntington Union Free School Dist., 29 AD3d 723 [2d Dept 2006].) In general, however, the rule is that there shall be full disclosure of all material and necessary information for the prosecution or defense of the action, regardless of the burden of proof. (CPLR 3101 [a].) “Material and necessary” have been interpreted to mean “disclosure, upon request, of any facts bearing on the controversy which will assist preparation for trial by sharpening the issues and reducing delay and prolixity. The test is one of usefulness and reason.” (Elmont Open MRI & Diagnostic Radiology, P.C. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 16 Misc 3d 161, 164 [Nassau Dist Ct 2007], quoting Allen v Crowell-Collier Publ. Co., 21 NY2d 403, 406 [1968]; see Andon v 302-304 Mott St. Assoc., 94 NY2d 740, 746 [2000].) In short, disclosure extends to all relevant information calculated to lead to relevant information, not just information that can be used as evidence in chief. (CPT Med. Servs., P.C. v Allstate Ins. Co., NYLJ, July 1, 2003, at 20, col 3.)

Other courts have held that health care service providers are entitled to disclosure of the assignor’s no-fault file which the defendant{**22 Misc 3d at 231} has in its possession, concluding that these records are material and necessary to the prosecution of a plaintiff’s claim that seeks to recover no-fault benefits where a defendant has denied payment. (Vinings Spinal Diagnostic v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 15 Misc 3d 270 [Nassau Dist Ct 2006]; Westbury Med. Care, P.C. v Lumbermans Mut. Ins. Co., 5 Misc 3d 838 [Nassau Dist Ct [*3]2004].)

Here, the plaintiff’s motion seeking to compel disclosure is based upon the defendant’s refusal to turn over material information. An order to compel disclosure is the proper vehicle to invoke when a party fails to respond to or comply with any request or demand made pursuant to article 31 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules. (CPLR 3124.) On the other hand, discovery demands which are irrelevant, privileged or confidential, may be subject to a protective order. (CPLR 3101; Delta Diagnostic Radiology, P.C. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 11 Misc 3d 136[A], 2006 NY Slip Op 50492[U] [App Term, 2d Dept 2006].) The party seeking to avoid discovery bears the burden to show that the material sought by the other party is irrelevant. (MOPS Med. Supply v GEICO Ins. Co., 4 Misc 3d 185, 188 [Civ Ct, Kings County 2004].) As such, here it is the defendant who bears the burden to establish that the material the plaintiff seeks is irrelevant. The defendant has failed to do so here.

The defendant purports that the medical documents the plaintiff seeks to have disclosed are irrelevant to the prosecution or defense of the matter since they cannot be used at trial by the defendant and could not assist the plaintiff in proving its prima facie case that the bills were mailed to the defendant. This argument is unpersuasive, for it oversimplifies the complexities intrinsic to a trial and the unpredictable path that the testimony of a witness at trial invariably takes. This court acknowledges those complexities in a trial, and finds that it is reasonable to infer that the information the plaintiff seeks to have disclosed may serve to rebut the defendant’s various claims, including the one that the services rendered were not medically necessary. As well, the materials may serve as material evidence ripe for cross-examination of the defendant’s expert witnesses which the plaintiff has a right and a duty to probe. In this court’s opinion, the information the plaintiff seeks to obtain, at the very least, may lead to relevant information that bears on the controversy in question. Therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to disclosure of this information.

Finally, however, this court finds that the plaintiff is not entitled to make such discovery demands in the absence of producing{**22 Misc 3d at 232} an assignment of benefits from the assignor. (Westbury Med. Care, P.C. v Lumbermans Mut. Ins. Co., 5 Misc 3d 838 [Nassau Dist Ct 2004].) Unlike the plaintiff’s companion case, which is also before this court (MD Imaging v Progressive N. Ins. Co., index No. CV-07-4590), the court file in the instant matter does not have an assignment of benefits form on file that demonstrates the plaintiff is legally authorized to obtain medical records concerning the claim which is the subject of this lawsuit. As such, the plaintiff must provide an assignment of benefits or authorization form to the defendant establishing that the assignor has authorized the disclosure of privileged information to MD Imaging, P.C. for purposes of obtaining insurance benefits.

Therefore, in upholding the rule that disclosure is to be broadly construed, this court finds within its broad discretion that the documents sought by the plaintiff are discoverable, for the information may rebut some of the defendant’s claims or it may lead to relevant information that bears on the controversy in question, and so it is[*4] ordered, that plaintiff’s motion to compel is granted upon the defendant’s receipt of the assignor’s valid authorization.