The Rybak Firm, PLLC (Damin J. Toell and Richard Rozhik of counsel), for appellant. Law Office of Jason Tenenbaum, P.C. (Shaaker Bhuiyan of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Robin S. Garson, J.), entered October 2, 2019. The order denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and granted defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

ORDERED that the order is modified by providing that the branches of defendant’s cross motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the first and third through tenth causes of action are denied, and the branch of plaintiff’s motion seeking summary judgment on the first cause of action is granted; as so modified, the order is affirmed, without costs.

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

Defendant denied the claim underlying the first cause of action on the ground that written instructions for physical therapy should have been included in plaintiff’s assignor’s medical records for services billed under CPT code 97001 of the workers’ compensation fee schedule. However, as plaintiff argues, defendant did not request any additional verification from plaintiff seeking the information it felt it required in order to review this claim. Consequently, defendant was not entitled to summary judgment dismissing the first cause of action, and, under the circumstances presented, the branch of plaintiff’s motion seeking summary judgment on that [*2]cause of action should have been granted (see Bronx Acupuncture Therapy, P.C. v Hereford Ins. Co., 57 Misc 3d 145[A], 2017 NY Slip Op 51452[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2017], affd 175 AD3d 455 [2019]).

With respect to the second cause of action, contrary to plaintiff’s contention, plaintiff’s conclusory assertion that it never received the check defendant had mailed to pay this claim was insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see Matter of Rodriguez v Wing, 251 AD2d 335 [1998]).

With respect to the third through tenth causes of action, plaintiff correctly argues that defendant failed to show, as a matter of law, that the independent medical examination (IME) scheduling letters were properly addressed and generated pursuant to the standard practices and procedures of its IME scheduling vendor (see St. Vincent’s Hosp. of Richmond v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 50 AD3d 1123 [2008]). Moreover, the affirmation from the doctor who was scheduled to perform the IMEs did not establish that he possessed personal knowledge of the nonappearance of plaintiff’s assignor for the IMEs. In addition, defendant failed to establish, as a matter of law, that the amounts charged in these claims were improperly billed or in excess of the amounts permitted by the workers’ compensation fee schedule. Therefore, defendant failed to establish its entitlement, as a matter of law, to summary judgment dismissing the third through tenth causes of action (see Stephen Fogel Psychological, P.C. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 35 AD3d 720 [2006]; Alleviation Med. Servs., P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 52 Misc 3d 128[A], 2016 NY Slip Op 50922[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2016]; Rogy Med., P.C. v Mercury Cas. Co., 23 Misc 3d 132[A], 2009 NY Slip Op 50732[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2009]).

However, plaintiff failed to establish its prima facie entitlement to summary judgment upon the third through tenth causes of action, as plaintiff did not establish either that defendant failed to timely deny the claims (see Viviane Etienne Med. Care, P.C. v Country-Wide Ins. Co., 25 NY3d 498 [2015]), or that defendant issued timely denial of claim forms that were conclusory, vague or without merit as a matter of law (see Westchester Med. Ctr. v Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 78 AD3d 1168 [2010]; Ave T MPC Corp. v Auto One Ins. Co., 32 Misc 3d 128[A], 2011 NY Slip Op 51292[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2011]). Thus, the branches of plaintiff’s motion seeking summary judgment on these causes of action were properly denied.

Accordingly, the order is modified by providing that the branches of defendant’s cross motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the first and third through tenth causes of action are denied, and the branch of plaintiff’s motion seeking summary judgment on the first cause of action is granted.

ALIOTTA, P.J., GOLIA and BUGGS, JJ., concur.

Index No.: CV-700046-20/QU

Plaintiff’s counsel: Law Offices of Gabriel & Shapiro LLC, 3361 Park Avenue Suite 1000, Wantagh, NY 11793

Defendant’s counsel: Rivkin Radler LLP, 926 RexCorp Plaza, Uniondale, NY 11556

I. Papers

The following papers were read on Defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing Plaintiff’s complaint:

II. Background

In a summons and complaint filed July 12, 2018, Defendant commenced an action in Supreme Court, Nassau County (“Supreme Court Action“) against Plaintiff seeking a judgment declaring that Defendant owed no duty to pay Plaintiff’s No-Fault claims because Plaintiff failed to appear for scheduled examinations under oath (“EUO“) (see Motion, Aff. of Pontrello, Ex. 3). In a summons and complaint filed January 2, 2020, Plaintiff sued Defendant insurance company to recover $346.52 in unpaid first party No-Fault benefits for medical services provided to Plaintiff’s assignor Martinez from September 8 to 27, 2017, for injuries sustained in an automobile accident, plus attorneys’ fees and statutory interest (see Motion, Pontrello Aff., Ex. 1). Defendant now moved for summary judgment dismissing Plaintiff’s complaint on the ground that the action is barred by res judicata. Plaintiff did not oppose Defendant’s motion.

III. Discussion

“Under the doctrine of res judicata, a party may not litigate a claim where a judgment on the merits exists from a prior action between the same parties involving the same subject matter” (Matter of Hunter, 4 NY3d 260, 269 [2005], see Simmons v Trans Express Inc., 37 NY3d 107, [*2]111 [2021]; Matter of Josey v Goord, 9 NY3d 386, 389 [2007]; Healthway Med. Care, P.C. v American Tr. Ins. Co., 54 Misc 3d 127[A], 2016 NY Slip Op 51786[U] *1 [App Term 2d Dept 2016]; Infinity Chiropractic Health, P.C. v Republic W. Ins. Co., 53 Misc 3d 144[A], 2016 NY Slip Op 51564[U] *1 [App Term 2d Dept 2016]). “Once a claim is brought to a final conclusion, all other claims arising out of the same transaction or series of transactions are barred, even if based upon different theories or if seeking a different remedy” (Simmons v Trans Express Inc., 37 NY3d at 111; O’Brien v City of Syracuse, 54 NY2d 353, 357 [1981], see Matter of Josey v Goord, 9 NY3d at 390; Tracey v Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co., 187 AD3d 815, 817 [2d Dept 2020]). Here, Defendant relied on an order dated October 4, 2019 (“Supreme Court Order“) in the Supreme Court Action, in which Supreme Court denied Plaintiff’s motion to compel arbitration, finding that Plaintiff “failed to satisfy the requirement of insurance coverage by appearing for the examination under an oath as noticed by” Defendants (State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v Fine Needle Acupuncture, PC, Sup. Ct. Nassau County, October 4, 2019, Brandveen, J., Index No. 609282/18; Motion, Pontrello Aff., Ex. 4). Since the Supreme Court Order was not an order granting Defendant a default judgment, as Defendant erroneously contended, here, Defendant failed to demonstrate that res judicata bars the present action.

Nevertheless, the related concept of collateral estoppel bars Plaintiff’s action. Collateral estoppel or issue preclusion prevents re-litigation of a factual or legal issue actually raised and resolved in a prior court determination (Paramount Pictures Corp. v Allianz Risk Transfer AG, 31 NY3d 64, 72 [2018]; Buechel v Bain, 97 NY2d 295, 303 [2001]; Matter of B.Z. Chiropractic, P.C. v Allstate Ins. Co., 197 AD3d 144, 152 [2d Dept 2021]; Coleman v J.P. Morgan Chase Bank N.A., 190 AD3d 931, 931-32 [2d Dept 2021]). In order to apply collateral estoppel, “there must be an identity of issue which has necessarily been decided in the prior action and is decisive of the present action, and there must have been a full and fair opportunity to contest the decision now said to be controlling” (Buechel v Bain, 97 NY2d at 303-04; Coleman v J.P. Morgan Chase Bank N.A., 190 AD3d at 932). In our instant case, both factors have been established. In the Supreme Court Action, Supreme Court found that Plaintiff failed to appear for the scheduled EUOs and did not challenge that Defendant requested the EUOs and had a valid reason for requesting them. It is well settled that noncompliance with an insurance policy provision requiring disclosure through an EUO is a failure of a condition precedent to an insurer’s duty to indemnify (IDS Prop. Cas. Ins. Co. v Stracar Med. Servs., P.C., 116 AD3d 1005, 1007 [2d Dept 2014]; National Med. & Surgical Supply, Inc. v ELRAC, Inc., 54 Misc 3d 131[A], 2017 NY Slip Op 50028[U] *1 [App Term 2d Dept 2017]) and is a material policy breach precluding recovery of proceeds under the insurance policy (Nationwide Affinity Ins. Co. of Am. v George, 183 AD3d 755, 756 [2d Dept 2020]; Interboro Ins. Co. v Clennon, 113 AD3d 596, 597 [2d Dept 2014]). Since Plaintiff is collaterally estopped from raising the issue of its non-attendance of the EUOs in the instant matter and Defendant presented evidence that it had timely denied Plaintiff’s claim based on Plaintiff’s failure to attend the EUOs (see Motion, Pontrello Aff., Ex. A), Defendant here is entitled to dismissal of Plaintiff’s complaint.

IV. Order

Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that Defendant’s motion for summary judgment is granted without opposition and Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed; and it is further

ORDERED that the part clerk is directed to dispose the index number for all purposes.

This constitutes the Decision and Order of the court.

Index No. CV-725161-20/QU

Plaintiff’s counsel:
Law Offices of Gabriel & Moroff, P.C.
2 Lincoln Avenue, Suite 302
Rockville Center, NY 11570

I. Papers

The following papers were read on Defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing Plaintiff’s complaint and Plaintiff’s cross-motion in its claims:

Defendant’s Notice of Motion and Affirmation in Support dated April 4, 2021 (“Motion“) and filed with the court on April 26, 2021. 1
Plaintiff’s Cross-Motion and Affirmation in Support dated August 4, 2021 (“Cross-Motion“) and electronically filed with the court on the same date. 2
Defendant’s Affirmation in Opposition dated December 27, 2021 (“Opposition“) and electronically filed with the court on December 30, 2020. 3

In a summons and complaint filed on December 18, 2020, Plaintiff commenced action against Defendant insurance company to recover a total of $1,359.40 in unpaid first party No-Fault benefits for medicine prescribed to Plaintiff’s assignor Viera on September 24, 2020, plus attorneys’ fees and statutory interest (see Motion, Aff. of O’Shea, Ex. A). Defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the grounds that Plaintiff lacked standing, and alternatively that Defendant timely denied Plaintiff’s claim based on lack of medical necessity. Plaintiff cross-moved for summary judgment on its claim against Defendant. An oral argument by both parties was conducted by this Court.

III. Discussion and Decision

CPLR 3212 provides that “a motion for summary judgment shall be supported by affidavit, by a copy of the pleadings and by other available proof, such as depositions and written admissions” (CPLR 3212[b]). “Mere conclusions, expressions of hope or unsubstantiated allegations or assertions are insufficient” (Zuckerman v. City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]). “A defendant moving for summary judgment [seeking an order dismissing plaintiff’s complaint] has the initial burden of coming forward with admissible evidence, such as affidavits by persons having knowledge of the facts, reciting the material facts and showing that the cause of action has no merit” (GTF Mktg. v Colonial Aluminum Sales, 66 NY2d 965, 967 [1985]; Anghel v Ruskin Moscou Faltischek, P.C., 190 AD3d 906, 907 [2d Dept 2021], see Jacobsen v. New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 22 NY3d 824, 833 [2014]). A motion for summary judgment “shall be granted if, upon all the papers and proof submitted, the cause of action or defense shall be established sufficiently to warrant the court as a matter of law in directing judgment in favor of any party” (CPLR 3212[b]; Zuckerman v. City of New York, at 562, see GTF Mktg. v Colonial Aluminum Sales, 66 NY2d at 968).

Defendant contended that Plaintiff lacked standing to bring action on its claim for No-Fault benefits provided to Viera and alternatively that the treatment Plaintiff provided to Viera was not medically necessary. Defendant argued Plaintiff lacked standing because the assignment of benefits was executed by Viera, who was a minor. Here, even assuming that it was improper for a minor to execute an assignment of benefits as Defendant contended (see 11 NYCRR 65-3.11[a]), Plaintiff presents prima facie entitlement to No Fault benefits by presenting an assignment of benefits form where Defendant fails to timely seek verification of the assignment’s validity (Hospital for Joint Diseases v Travelers Prop. Cas. Ins. Co., 9 NY3d 312, 320 [2007], see Boris Kleyman Physician, P.C. v IDS Prop. Cas. Ins. Co., 46 Misc 3d 129[A], 2014 NY Slip Op 51810[U] *1 [App Term 2d Dept 2014]). Moreover, Defendant’s failure to timely object to the assignment waived any defenses based on any deficiencies in the assignment (Hospital for Joint Diseases v Allstate Ins. Co., 21 AD3d 348, 348 [2d Dept 2005]; St. Vincent Med. Care, P.C. v Country Wide Ins. Co., 26 Misc 3d 146[A], 2010 NY Slip Op 50488[U] *2 [App Term 2d Dept 2010], see Beal-Medea Prods., Inc. v Geico Gen. Ins. Co., 51 Misc 3d 138[A], 2016 NY Slip Op 50594[U] *1 [App Term 2d Dept 2016]).

Regarding medical necessity, Defendant’s denial on that ground must completely and clearly state the reason for denial of the claim and apprise Plaintiff of the grounds upon which [*2]disclaimer is based (Olympic Chiropractic, P.C. v American Tr. Ins. Co., 14 Misc 3d 129[A], 2007 NY Slip Op 50011[U] *1 [App Term 2d Dept 2007]; Amaze Med. Supply v Eagle Ins. Co., 2 Misc 3d 128[A], 2003 NY Slip Op 51701[U] *1 [App Term 2d Dept 2003], see Delta Diagnostic Radiology, P. C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 14 Misc 3d 126[A], 2006 NY Slip Op 52370[U] *2 [App Term 2d Dept 2006], see e.g., Promed Durable Equip., Inc. v GEICO Ins., 41 Misc 3d 19, 21 [App Term 2d Dept 2013]). To support the contention that the prescribed medication was not medically necessary, Defendant presented the affirmation of Agrawal, M.D., dated November 3, 2020. Dr. Agrawal attested that Viera “was prescribed Lidocaine 5% ointment by Dr. Hausknecht, which was not medically necessary and not causally related as it is not supported by enough evidence. Lidocaine is questionable in a 15-year-old [sic] as efficacy, especially given the side effects of cardiac arrythmia and seizures. Her pain seems to be causally related, but I question this aggressive testing and treatment in a 15 year old child” (Motion, O’Shea Aff., Ex. C at 6). Dr. Agrawal’s opinion that the medication prescribed was not medically necessary was entirely conclusory (see Amaze Med. Supply v Eagle Ins. Co., 2003 NY Slip Op 51701[U] *1). In addition, while Dr. Agrawal addressed the advisability of the medication prescribed for Plaintiff, nowhere did Dr. Agrawal state that such treatment was unnecessary. Therefore, Defendant’s denial on the ground of medical necessity was factually insufficient and may not be raised as a defense to Plaintiff’s claim (see Olympic Chiropractic, P.C. v American Tr. Ins. Co., 2007 NY Slip Op 50011[U] *2; Amaze Med. Supply v Eagle Ins. Co., 2003 NY Slip Op 51701[U] *1-2).

Regarding Plaintiff’s Cross-Motion, Plaintiff’s sole contention was that Defendant’s payment or denial of Plaintiff’s claim was untimely. Plaintiff bore the burden to show it submitted the statutory claim forms indicating the fact and amount of the loss sustained and “that payment of no-fault benefits [was] overdue” (NYU-Hospital for Joint Diseases v Esurance Ins. Co., 84 AD3d 1190, 1191 [2d Dept 2011]; Bajaj v General Assur., 18 Misc 3d 25, 27 [App Term 2d Dept 2007]; Fair Price Med. Supply Corp. v ELRAC Inc., 12 Misc 3d 119, 120 [App Term 2d Dept 2006]). Here, Plaintiff pointed to its bill and Defendant’s denial of claim form which indicated that Defendant received Plaintiff’s bill for $1,359.40 on October 28, 2020 (see Motion, O’Shea Aff., Ex. C). A denial of claim form, however, is insufficient to establish a medical provider’s prima facie case but suffices to establish Defendant’s receipt of Plaintiff’s claim and nonpayment of that claim (Lopes v Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 24 Misc 3d 127[A], 2009 NY Slip Op 51279[U] *2 [App Term 2d Dept 2009]). Although Defendant’s denial of claim form established Defendant’s timely denial of the claim, as discussed above, Defendant failed to establish the lack of medical necessity of prescribed medication upon which Plaintiff based its claim (Amaze Med. Supply v Eagle Ins. Co., 2003 NY Slip Op 51701[U] *1). Therefore, Plaintiff has demonstrated entitlement to summary judgment on its claim (see Olympic Chiropractic, P.C. v American Tr. Ins. Co., 2007 NY Slip Op 50011[U]*2; Amaze Med. Supply v Eagle Ins. Co., 2003 NY Slip Op 51701[U] *1).

IV. Order

Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for summary judgment dismissing Plaintiff’s complaint (Motion Seq. #1) is denied; and it is further

ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Cross-Motion for summary judgment on its claim against Defendant (Motion Seq. #2) is granted; and it is further

ORDERED that the Clerk shall enter judgment in Plaintiff’s favor and against Defendant in the amount of $1,359.40 together with statutory interest from October 28, 2020 and statutory attorneys’ fees.

This constitutes the court’s Decision and Order

Glinkenhouse Queen, Esqs. (Alan Queen of counsel), for appellant. Thomas A. Torto, Esq. (Thomas Torto and Jason Levine of counsel), for respondent.

Appeals from orders of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (David M. Hawkins, J.), entered February 27, 2019 and April 14, 2020. The February 27, 2019 order, insofar as appealed from as limited by the brief, sua sponte tolled the accrual of all no-fault statutory interest. The April 14, 2020 order, insofar as appealed from as limited by the brief, denied the branch of plaintiff’s motion seeking to vacate and/or modify so much of the February 27, 2019 order as was made sua sponte.

ORDERED that the appeals are consolidated for purposes of disposition; and it is further,

ORDERED that the appeal from so much of the February 27, 2019 order as sua sponte tolled the accrual of all no-fault statutory interest is dismissed as no appeal as of right lies from an order made sua sponte; and it is further,

ORDERED that the April 14, 2020 order, insofar as appealed from, is modified by providing that no-fault statutory interest is tolled from June 27, 1997 until April 5, 2018; as so modified, the order, insofar as appealed from, is affirmed, without costs.

In 1995, plaintiff commenced this action to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits for services rendered to his assignor for injuries allegedly sustained in a motor vehicle accident in August 1994. Defendant appeared and answered. After defendant failed to appear for trial in May 1997, an inquest was held in June 1997, following which a written decision dated June 27, [*2]1997 was issued awarding plaintiff judgment in the sum of $1,480 with interest from April 21, 1995. On April 5, 2018, plaintiff moved for “an Order compelling the clerk to enter judgment based upon the inquest held in this matter.” Defendant cross-moved to dismiss the action, arguing that plaintiff had failed to submit a proposed judgment within 60 days pursuant to Uniform Rules for New York City Civil Court (22 NYCRR) § 208.33 (a). By order entered February 27, 2019, the Civil Court found that all no-fault statutory interest should be tolled because plaintiff had unreasonably delayed in seeking to enter judgment (see former 11 NYCRR 65.15 [h] [now 11 NYCRR 65-3.9 (d)]) and directed the clerk “to enter judgment . . . for the Plaintiff in the amount of $1,480.00 with no prejudgment interest,” and denied defendant’s cross motion. Defendant has since paid the sum of $1,480.

Thereafter, plaintiff moved for, among other things, an order “vacating and/or modifying that portion of the Court’s [February 27, 2019] order . . . that is sua sponte.” Defendant opposed the motion. By order entered April 14, 2020, the Civil Court denied the branch of plaintiff’s motion seeking to vacate and/or modify the sua sponte portion of the February 27th order, stating that plaintiff would not be awarded any prejudgment interest, and finding that no portion of the February 27th order was made sua sponte.

As limited by his brief, plaintiff appeals from so much of the February 27, 2019 order as sua sponte tolled the accrual of all no-fault statutory interest and from so much of the April 14, 2020 order as denied the branch of plaintiff’s motion seeking to vacate and/or modify the portion of the February 27, 2019 order as was made sua sponte. The appeal from so much of the February 27, 2019 order as sua sponte tolled the no-fault statutory interest pursuant to 11 NYCRR 65-3.9 (d) is dismissed as it did not address a demand for relief made on notice and, therefore, is not appealable as of right (see CCA 1702 [a]; Sholes v Meagher, 100 NY2d 333 [2003]; Biotech Surgical Supply, Inc. v Country Wide Ins. Co., 66 Misc 3d 135[A], 2019 NY Slip Op 52143[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2019]).

As to the April 14, 2020 order, we agree with the Civil Court’s determination pursuant to former 11 NYCRR 65.15 (h) (now 11 NYCRR 65-3.9 [d]) that plaintiff unreasonably waited more than 20 years before moving to have a judgment entered upon the decision issued after the inquest. The no-fault regulations provide that, “[i]f an applicant has submitted a dispute to arbitration or the courts, interest shall accumulate, unless the applicant unreasonably delays the arbitration or court proceeding” (former 11 NYCRR 65.15 [h] [now 11 NYCRR 65-3.9 (d)]). A no-fault plaintiff “should not be rewarded for his years of inaction by receiving a windfall of interest” (Aminov v Country Wide Ins. Co., 43 Misc 3d 87, 89 [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2014]). Contrary to plaintiff’s argument, this case is not analogous to cases in which we have held that interest should not be tolled between a settlement and the entry of a judgment upon the settlement (see e.g. Seaside Rehabilitation v Allstate Ins. Co., 63 Misc 3d 162[A], 2019 NY Slip Op 50918[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2019]). A settlement is the resolution of a case to which both parties have agreed, and the entry of a judgment is only permitted where a settling defendant fails to do what it has promised to do: pay the agreed-upon sum within 21 days of tender of the required paperwork (see CPLR 5003-a). In contrast, a case that goes to inquest or trial concludes in a judgment, and plaintiff should not be awarded a windfall of punitive interest because he failed to enter a judgment for more than 20 years after the inquest. Thus, so much of the February 27, 2019 order as tolled the no-fault [*3]statutory interest from June 27, 1997, the date of the decision after inquest, until April 5, 2018, when plaintiff moved to enter a judgment based upon that decision, was proper and the Civil Court correctly declined to vacate that part of the order.

However, the Civil Court should have vacated so much of the February 27, 2019 order as declined to award interest from April 21, 1995 until June 27, 1997, which interest was awarded by the June 27, 1997 decision, as there has been no finding that plaintiff unreasonably delayed this case during that period. We note that since the subject accident took place in 1994, no-fault statutory interest should be calculated at a compounded rate (see former 11 NYCRR 65.15 [h] [1]; Matter of B.Z. Chiropractic, P.C. v Allstate Ins. Co., 197 AD3d 144 [2021]; Belt Parkway Imaging, P.C. v State Wide Ins. Co., 30 Misc 3d 127[A], 2010 NY Slip Op 52229[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2010]).

Plaintiff’s remaining arguments regarding interest lack merit.

Accordingly, the April 14, 2020 order, insofar as appealed from, is modified by providing that no-fault statutory interest is tolled from June 27, 1997 until April 5, 2018.

ALIOTTA, P.J., TOUSSAINT and GOLIA, JJ., concur.

Decided on September 9, 2022

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

Hollander Legal Group, P.C. (Allan S. Hollander of counsel), for appellant. Zara Javakov, P.C. (Victoria Tarasova of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Consuelo Mallafre Melendez, J.), entered January 9, 2020. The order, insofar as appealed from and as limited by the brief, denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

ORDERED that the order, insofar as appealed from, is reversed, with $30 costs, and defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted.

In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, defendant appeals from so much of an order of the Civil Court as denied defendant’s motion which had sought summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that plaintiff’s assignor failed to appear for duly scheduled examinations under oath (EUOs). The Civil Court found, in effect pursuant to CPLR 3212 (g), that plaintiff established the timely mailing of the bills and defendant established the timely mailing of its denials, and limited the issue for trial to defendant’s “EUO no show defense as to the March 27, 2017 date.”

In its motion, defendant established that a letter scheduling the EUO for March 27, 2017 was timely and properly mailed (see St. Vincent’s Hosp. of Richmond v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 50 AD3d 1123 [2008]). The affirmation of defendant’s counsel, as well as the transcript of the March 27, 2017 EUO, was sufficient to establish that plaintiff’s assignor failed to appear for [*2]that EUO (Pavlova v Nationwide Ins., 70 Misc 3d 144[A], 2021 NY Slip Op 50213[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2021]). Consequently, as plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact in opposition to defendant’s motion or otherwise challenge the implicit CPLR 3212 (g) finding in defendant’s favor, defendant is entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Accordingly, the order, insofar as appealed from, is reversed and defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted.

ALIOTTA, P.J., TOUSSAINT and GOLIA, JJ., concur.

Decided on September 9, 2022

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

Hollander Legal Group, P.C. (Allan S. Hollander of counsel), for appellant. Zara Javakov, P.C. (Zara Javakov of counsel), for respondent (no brief filed).

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Consuelo Mallafre Melendez, J.), entered January 9, 2020. The order, insofar as appealed from and as limited by the brief, denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

ORDERED that the order, insofar as appealed from, is reversed, with $30 costs, and defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted.

In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, defendant appeals from so much of an order of the Civil Court as denied defendant’s motion which had sought summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that plaintiff’s assignor failed to appear for duly scheduled examinations under oath (EUOs). The Civil Court found, in effect pursuant to CPLR 3212 (g), that plaintiff established the timely mailing of the bills and defendant established the timely mailing of its denials, and limited the issue for trial to defendant’s “EUO no show defense as to the March 27, 2017 date.”

For the reasons stated in Forest Park Acupuncture, P.C., as Assignee of Jose Enzo v Nationwide Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. (— Misc 3d —, 2022 NY Slip Op — [appeal No. 2019-683 K C], decided herewith), the order, insofar as appealed from, is reversed and defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted.

ALIOTTA, P.J., TOUSSAINT and GOLIA, JJ., concur.

Freiberg, Peck & Kang, LLP (Yilo J. Kang of counsel), for appellants. The Rybak Firm, PLLC (Oleg Rybak of counsel), for respondent (no brief filed).

Appeals from orders of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Harriet L. Thompson, J.), each entered November 20, 2018. The first order (appeal No. 2020-271 K C) denied a motion to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against defendant American Independent Ins. Co. The second order (appeal No. 2022-137 K C), insofar as appealed from, denied the branches of a motion seeking to dismiss so much of the complaint as was asserted against defendants American Independent Insurance Companies, Inc. and Good2Go Auto [*2]Insurance.

ORDERED that the appeals are consolidated for purposes of disposition; and it is further,

ORDERED that the order being appealed under appeal number 2020-271 K C is reversed, with $30 costs, and the motion to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against defendant American Independent Ins. Co. is granted; and it is further

ORDERED that the order being appealed under appeal number 2022-137 K C, insofar as appealed from, is reversed, with $30 costs, and the branches of the motion seeking to dismiss so much of the complaint as was asserted against defendants American Independent Insurance Companies, Inc. and Good2Go Auto Insurance are granted.

In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, the affidavit of service alleges that the summons and complaint were served by mail pursuant to CPLR 312-a. However, plaintiff’s papers do not contain an acknowledgment of service. Defendant American Independent Ins. Co. moved to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against it on the ground that plaintiff had failed to obtain personal jurisdiction over it. Defendants American Independent Insurance Companies, Inc., Good2Go Auto Insurance and Omni Indemnity Company moved, in a single motion, to dismiss so much of the complaint as was asserted against them on the ground that plaintiff had failed to obtain personal jurisdiction over them. Plaintiff opposed both motions and cross-moved for summary judgment. Defendant American Independent Ins. Co. appeals (appeal No. 2020-271 K C) from an order of the Civil Court entered November 20, 2018 denying the motion to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against it. Defendants American Independent Insurance Companies, Inc., and Good2Go Auto Insurance appeal (appeal No. 2022-137 K C) from so much of a separate order of the Civil Court, also entered November 20, 2018, as denied the branches of the motion seeking to dismiss so much of the complaint as was asserted against them.

For the reasons stated in Longevity Med. Supply, Inc. v American Ind. Ins. Co. (69 Misc 3d 127[A], 2020 NY Slip Op 51118[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2020]), the order being appealed under appeal number 2020-271 K C and the order being appealed under appeal number 2022-137 K C, insofar as appealed from, are reversed. The first motion, by defendant American Independent Ins. Co., is granted, and the branches of the second motion seeking to dismiss so much of the complaint as was asserted against defendants American Independent Insurance Companies, Inc., and Good2Go Auto Insurance are granted.

ALIOTTA, P.J., TOUSSAINT and GOLIA, JJ., concur.

Index No. CV-701018-20/RI

Plaintiff’s Counsel
Joseph Sparacio Attorney At Law PLLC
292 Nelson Avenue
Staten Island, NY 10308
(718) 966-0055

Defendant’s Counsel
Law Offices of Tina Newson-Lee
PO Box 2904
Hartford, CT 06104
(917) 778-6500

MK Healthcare Medical PC (“MK Healthcare”) as assignee of Marleine Sully (“Assignor”) (collectively referred as “Plaintiff”), commenced this action to recover $913.39 in assigned first-party no-fault benefits from Defendant Travelers Insurance Company (“Defendant”).

Plaintiff represents that the Assignor sustained injuries during an accident that occurred on December 31, 2018, in which the Assignor was a front-seat passenger. According to the Plaintiff, Defendant improperly failed to pay for treatment rendered to the Assignor in connection with her alleged injuries in the amount of $913.39. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant failed to pay for a “NCV w/f wave lower” (“F Wave”) and “Needle EMG lower” [*2](“EMG”) (collectively “Procedures”) performed on April 22, 2019. The Procedures were electrodiagnostic studies of the Assignor’s lower extremities. While Plaintiff argues that Defendant is responsible for paying for the Procedures, Defendant maintains that it was under no such obligation since the Procedures were not medically necessary.

On August 3, 2022, the Court held a virtual bench trial during which both Plaintiff and Defendant were represented by counsel. Pursuant to a stipulation entered into by the parties, Plaintiff and Defendant stipulated that MK Healthcare met its prima facie burden and consented to the admission of evidence, namely medical records, medical reports, expert witness disclosure, as well as portions of the Referral Guidelines for Electrodiagnostic Medicine Consultations. The parties also stipulated to the expertise of the Defendant’s expert, Ayman Hadhoud, M.D. (“Dr. Hadhoud”). Accordingly, the only matter at issue in the trial was whether Defendant’s denial of the claim on the ground of medical necessity was proper under Insurance Law § 5102[a][1].

Defendant’s sole witness was Dr. Hadhoud, a licensed physician and acupuncturist, who performed a peer review of MK Healthcare’s medical records. Dr. Hadhoud testified that Procedures prescribed by MK Healthcare (Richard A. Gasalberti, M.D.) were not medically necessary. Dr. Hadhoud testified as to his review of the relevant MK Healthcare records, which revealed that MK Healthcare recommended Assignor undergo “EMG/nerve conduction studies of the lower extremities to electrophysiologically document for lumbar radiculopathy.” Dr. Hadhoud testified that based upon his review of the medical records, the EMG was not necessary since the Assignor’s neurological exam was normal and there was no clinical presentation that would necessitate an EMG. Dr. Hadhoud further testified that considering the medical records from MK Healthcare, the F Wave was also not medically necessary because such procedure was not necessary in the context of ruling out radiculopathy in the Assignor.

The Court notes that during the trial, the Plaintiff did not call any witnesses. Furthermore, the only evidence that Plaintiff submitted in support of its claim that the Defendant violated Insurance Law § 5102[a][1] consisted of the documentary evidence that was stipulated into evidence by the parties.

Discussion

Under Insurance Law § 5101, “an insurer must pay first-party benefits of up to $50,000 per person to reimburse a person for covered ‘basic economic loss’ (Insurance Law 5102[a]), subject to the limitations of Insurance Law 5108.” (Govt. Employees Ins. Co. v Avanguard Med. Group, PLLC, 127 AD3d 60, 63 [2d Dept 2015], affd, 27 NY3d 22 [2016]). “The no-fault law defines “basic economic loss” (Insurance Law § 5102[a]) as ‘[a]ll necessary expenses incurred for: (i) medical, hospital … [and] surgical … services’ (id. § 5102[a][1][i]) as well as loss of earnings from work.” (Hernandez v Merchants Mut. Ins. Co., 206 AD3d 978, 979 [2d Dept 2022] (citing Insurance Law 5102[a][1]). See Govt. Employees Ins. Co. v Avanguard Med. Group, PLLC, 127 AD3d 60, 63 [2d Dept 2015], affd, 27 NY3d 22 [2016]; Forrest Chen Acupuncture Services, P.C. v Geico Ins. Co., 15 Misc 3d 137(A) [App Term 2007], affd, 54 AD3d 996 [2d Dept 2008]). As held by the Appellate Division, Second Department, “like the statute, the regulations promulgated thereunder expressly state that reimbursable medical expenses consist of ‘necessary expenses.'” (Hernandez v. Merchants Mut. Ins. Co., 206 AD3d [*3]978, 979 [2d Dept 2022] (citing to Long Is. Radiology v. Allstate Ins. Co., 36 AD3d 763, 764-65 [2d Dept 2007])).

The Court finds that based upon Defendant’s denial of claim forms and the findings of Dr. Hadhoud, encompassed in his testimony and report, Defendant sufficiently demonstrated that there was no medical necessity for the Procedures. (See Urban Radiology, P.C. v. Tri-State Consumer Ins. Co., 911 N.Y.S.2d 697 [App. Term, 2d Dept., 2010]). The Court found that Dr. Hadhoud’s testimony to be medically sound and credible. Dr. Hadhoud also sufficiently demonstrated that he relied upon his examination as well as his review of the Assignor’s medical records in order to reach his opinion that the Procedures were not medically necessary for the Assignor’s condition. Dr. Hadhoud’s testimony “demonstrated a factual basis and medical rationale for the determination that there was a lack of medical necessity” for the Procedures. (New Horizon Surgical Ctr., L.L.C. v. Allstate Ins. Co., 52 Misc 3d 139(A) [App Term 2016]). Based upon the credible testimony of Dr. Hadhoud and the relevant medical records submitted to the Court during trial, the Court finds that Defendant met its burden and demonstrated its entitlement to judgment in its favor.

The Court further finds that Plaintiff failed to demonstrate its entitlement to judgment or otherwise rebut Defendant’s showing. As noted above, “Plaintiff called no witnesses to rebut the defendant’s showing of a lack of medical necessity.” (See New Horizon Surgical Ctr., L.L.C. v. Allstate Ins. Co., 41 N.Y.S.3d 720 [App. Term 2d Dept., 2016] (holding that the Civil Court should have dismissed the complaint after Plaintiff failed to call a witness to rebut Defendant’s showing of lack of medical necessity.”)). Furthermore, Plaintiff failed to submit any evidence, such as the testimony of the referring physician or of its own medical expert, to establish that the Procedures were medically necessary.

Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED that judgment is rendered in favor of Defendant; and it is

ORDERED that the matter is dismissed with prejudice.

The foregoing constitutes the Decision and Order of the Court.

Dated: August 25, 2022
_____________________________
Staten Island, New York
Hon. Brendan T. Lantry
Judge of the Civil Court

Index No. 151954/2022

Rivkin Radler LLP, Uniondale, NY (Vincent J. Pontrello of counsel), for plaintiffs.

No appearance for defendant.

In this action, plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment relating to no-fault insurance coverage. Unlike the typical no-fault declaratory-judgment action, plaintiffs do not seek relief against a range of medical providers who have each claimed benefits for treatment provided following a particular covered automobile collision. Instead, plaintiffs have brought this action against one provider, addressing benefits claims for treatment provided following dozens of collisions. (See NYSCEF No. 1 at ｶ 1 [verified complaint]; NYSCEF No. 2 [listing claims].)

Plaintiffs allege that they denied each of these claims because defendant failed in each instance to appear for a properly requested examination under oath (EUO). (NYSCEF No. 1 at ｶｶ 26-32.) They allege that these EUOs were aimed at ascertaining whether defendant is ineligible to collect no-fault benefits under 11 NYCRR 65-3.16 (a) (12) due to, among other things, being controlled by nonphysicians in willful violation of New York law. (Id. at ｶｶ 23-24; see Andrew Carothers, M.D., P.C. v Progressive Ins. Co., 33 NY3d 389, 403-405 [2019] [*2][discussing this ground for denying no-fault claims].)

Plaintiffs now move without opposition for default judgment under CPLR 3215. The motion is denied.

DISCUSSION

Plaintiffs’ motion papers establish that defendant was properly served; and defendant has not appeared. The question is thus whether plaintiffs’ verified complaint, standing alone, provides proof of the facts constituting plaintiff’s claim. (See CPLR 3215 [f].) It does not.

A plaintiff denying a provider’s claim for no-fault benefits based on asserted failures to appear for an EUO must demonstrate that the EUO was timely and properly requested. (See Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v Carranza, 2021 NY Slip Op 50284[U], at *1-2 [Sup Ct, NY County Apr. 7, 2021], citing American Transit Ins. Co. v Longevity Med. Supply, Inc., 131 AD3d 841, 841 [1st Dept 2015].) Plaintiffs have not satisfied these requirements.

Plaintiffs’ verified complaint alleges only that “[e]ach request was timely made,” that plaintiffs then “issued a timely denial on the prescribed denial on the prescribed NF-10 form,” and that these denials “were timely, proper, and consistent with the No-Fault Laws.” (NYSCEF No. 1 at ｶｶ 27, 31, 32.) Given the dozens of bills, EUO requests and follow-up requests, and denials involved (see NYSCEF No. 2 [list of claims]), these conclusory statements are insufficient. That is particularly true since plaintiffs have not submitted any evidence that the many EUO requests, follow-up requests, and denials in question were not simply generated by plaintiffs, but also correctly addressed and mailed to defendant. Plaintiffs do provide a lengthy, detailed chart of bills and EUO requests, organized by the underlying benefits claim. (See id.) That chart, however, omits the most important date for purposes of assessing timeliness—the date on which plaintiffs received the bills. (See id.; 11 NYCRR 65-3.5 [b] [requiring insurers to request EUO-based verification within 15 business days of receiving a provider bill].)

Additionally, the complaint alleges that defendant has “systematically failed and/or refused to appear for an EUO” on many occasions over the past year. (NYSCEF No. 1 at ｶ 29.) This allegation treats a failure to appear and a refusal to appear as interchangeable. But that is not necessarily so. For example, a provider may properly condition its appearance at an EUO on receiving the insurer’s specific objective justification for requesting the EUO under 11 NYCRR 65-3.5 (e). (See Kemper Independence Ins. Co. v Accurate Monitoring, LLC, 73 Misc 3d 585, 586-587, 589 [Sup Ct, NY County 2021].) Plaintiffs’ motion papers do not address whether defendant ever made that kind of request—or, if it did, what the response was.^[FN1] Similarly, [*3]although plaintiffs allege that each EUO request to defendant “endeavored to select places and times for the EUO that would be convenient to [defendant] and advised that a change of time, date, manner and location would be considered if requested” (NYSCEF No. 1 at ｶ 28), plaintiffs do not say whether defendant ever did request a change of that type for logistical/convenience reasons, and, if so, how plaintiffs responded.

Moreover, plaintiffs have not indicated whether any of defendant’s claims for treatment—or other benefits claims arising out of the numerous collisions underlying defendant’s treatment bills—have given rise to other no-fault proceedings by or against plaintiffs. It would be somewhat curious, given the sheer number of insurance claims appearing in plaintiffs’ EUO-request chart, if this action were the very first time that litigation involving one of those claims has arisen—possible, but curious. And if this action were not the first time that one of the no-fault claims identified in the chart has led to litigation, plaintiffs’ declaratory-judgment claims here would be subject to an obvious claim-preclusion objection.

Claim preclusion, to be sure, is an affirmative defense. (See CPLR 3211 [a] [5].) Plaintiffs thus were not required to rule it out in their complaint. For the same reason, the absence of any allegation addressing claim-preclusion-related issues is not itself grounds to deny plaintiffs’ default-judgment motion. But that absence does underscore the comparative thinness of plaintiffs’ motion papers compared to the typical showing in a no-fault coverage action—particularly given the number of claims and bills involved and the amount of money at stake.

The difficulty in this action is that plaintiffs’ true grievance appears to be their conclusion that defendant is not providing legitimate medical services and is ineligible under 11 NYCRR 65-3.16 (a) (12) to receive no-fault benefits. But this action does not pursue and support that grievance through seeking a declaration that speaks directly to defendant’s putative lack of eligibility. Instead, plaintiffs are seeking, in effect, to achieve that same result by relying on many asserted EUO-nonappearances to obtain a declaratory judgment supporting en masse plaintiffs’ denials of defendant’s treatment bills.

Proceeding in this manner might be simpler and more efficient from plaintiffs’ perspective than bringing many individual declaratory judgment actions, each premised on a particular failure of defendant to appear for an EUO. As reflected in the discussion above, though, the flip side of plaintiffs’ efficiency gains is that this court loses the information and documentation it needs to properly evaluate plaintiffs’ claims about defendant’s repeated EUO-nonappearances. (Cf. Travelers Indemnity Co. v Parisien, 2020 NY Slip Op 51561[U], at *3-4 [Sup Ct, Suffolk County Dec. 29, 2020] [expressing concern in a no-fault declaratory-judgment action about 13 different sets of treatment bills that “[u]ltimately, in the guise of convenience, plaintiffs are, in effect, seeking to circumvent the statutorily prescribed procedures that govern disputes between no-fault insurers and no-fault health services providers over the validity of reimbursement claims and the health services provider’s eligibility”].) In these circumstances, on this record, this court is loath to grant plaintiffs the default judgment that they seek.

At the same time, the court does not rule out the possibility that plaintiffs could still provide the details (and supporting documents) about their EUO requests needed to show that defendant repeatedly failed without justification to appear for timely and properly scheduled EUOs. The court thus sees no basis at this time to dismiss plaintiffs’ action altogether.

Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that plaintiffs’ motion for default judgment under CPLR 3215 is denied [*4]without prejudice; and it is further

ORDERED that if plaintiffs do not bring a renewed default-judgment motion within 60 days of entry of this order, the action will be administratively dismissed; and it is further

ORDERED that plaintiffs serve a copy of this order with notice of its entry on defendant by certified mail, return receipt requested, directed to defendant’s last-known address.

Footnotes

Footnote 1: Although the issue is not squarely presented by the current motion, plaintiff’s complaint does not provide that justification either. It alleges only that “various facts and circumstances . . . called into question” defendant’s eligibility to collect no-fault benefits and the legitimacy of defendant’s treatment and billing, without identifying any of those facts and circumstances. (NYSCEF No. 1 at 24.) That would not be sufficient under 11 NYCRR 65-3.5 (e), were the issue to be contested. (See Kemper Independence, 73 Misc 3d at 589 n 4; Country-Wide Ins. Co. v Delacruz, 71 Misc 3d 247, 251 [Sup Ct, NY County 2021], affd 205 AD3d 473, 473-474 [1st Dept 2022].)