[*1]

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Department, March 28, 2007

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

McDonnell & Adels, P.C., Garden City (Martha S. Henley of counsel), for appellant. Gary Tsirelman, P.C., Brooklyn, for respondent.

{**15 Misc 3d at 111} OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

Order reversed without costs, plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment denied without prejudice to renewal upon completion of discovery, and defendant’s motion to dismiss for failure to provide discovery or, in the alternative, to compel plaintiff to provide discovery granted to the extent of compelling plaintiff to serve, within 30 days after the date of the order entered hereon, responses to defendant’s demand for written interrogatories and, within 30 days after service of such responses, to produce for examinations before trial the witnesses identified in defendant’s amended notice of examination before trial.

In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, plaintiff moved for summary judgment. Defendant served opposing papers and subsequently moved to dismiss the complaint based on plaintiff’s failure to respond to discovery demands or, in the alternative, for an order compelling plaintiff to comply with its discovery demands. The court granted plaintiff’s motion and denied defendant’s motion. The instant appeal by defendant ensued. [*2]

In State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v Mallela (4 NY3d 313 [2005]), the Court of Appeals held that fraudulently incorporated medical corporations were not entitled to reimbursement of no-fault benefits. The Court noted that 11 NYCRR 65-3.16 (a) (12), which states that “[a] provider of health care services is not eligible for reimbursement under section 5102(a)(1) of the Insurance Law if the provider fails to meet any applicable New York State or local licensing requirement,” specifically “excluded from the meaning of ‘basic economic loss’ payments made to unlicensed or fraudulently licensed providers, thus rendering them ineligible for reimbursement” (Mallela, 4 NY3d at 320). The defense that a provider is fraudulently licensed is a nonwaivable defense (see First Help Acupuncture P.C. v State Farm Ins. Co., 12 Misc 3d 130[A], 2006 NY Slip Op 51043[U] [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2006]; see also Allstate Ins. Co. v Belt Parkway Imaging, P.C., 33 AD3d 407 [2006]; see generally Metroscan Imaging, P.C. v GEICO Ins. Co., 13 Misc 3d 35 [App Term, 2d Dept 2006]). Defendant’s opposition papers suffice to raise issues as to who really operated and controlled plaintiff (see Midwood Acupuncture, P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 14 Misc 3d 131[A], 2007 NY Slip Op 50052[U] [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2007]; Lexington Acupuncture, P.C. v State Farm Ins. Co., 12 Misc 3d 90 [App Term, 2d Dept 2006]). Since{**15 Misc 3d at 112} the opposition papers set forth that facts essential to justify opposition may exist but cannot be stated (see CPLR 3212 [f]), plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment should have been denied without prejudice to renewal upon the completion of discovery.

With respect to defendant’s motion to dismiss for failure to provide discovery or, in the alternative, to compel plaintiff to provide discovery, plaintiff failed to oppose said motion. Accordingly, defendant’s motion should have been granted to the extent of compelling plaintiff to serve responses to defendant’s demand for written interrogatories and to produce for examinations before trial the witnesses identified in defendant’s amended notice of examination before trial.

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

[*1]

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Department, March 28, 2007

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

Bruno, Gerbino & Soriano, LLP, Melville (Charles W. Benton of counsel), for appellant.

{**15 Misc 3d at 98} OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

Order affirmed without costs.

In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, defendant moved for summary judgment predicated on the lack of coverage, i.e., that the assignor’s injuries, if any, did not arise from the underlying traffic incident, and, if they did, the incident was staged to defraud defendant. After the court (Norman Janowitz, J.) denied defendant’s motion, plaintiff then moved for summary judgment, which defendant opposed essentially on the same proof of fraud submitted in support of its own motion. The court (Erica L. Prager, J.) declined to review defendant’s proof of fraud on the ground that the prior determination, that the proof did not support defendant’s motion, was the law of the case. The court granted plaintiff’s motion and this appeal ensued.

Contrary to the determination of the court below, the prior order which denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment did not bar reconsideration of defendant’s proof of fraud in opposition to plaintiff’s motion, since the quantum of proof needed to obtain summary judgment is higher than that necessary to establish a triable issue of material fact in opposition to such a motion (e.g. Friends of Animals v Associated Fur Mfrs., 46 NY2d 1065, 1068 [1979]; Stone v Goodson, 8 NY2d 8, 12 [1960]; Kwi Bong Yi v JNJ Supply Corp., 274 AD2d 453 [2000]). [*2]

To interpose a defense of staged-accident fraud sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact, defendant must establish “the fact or founded belief that the alleged injur[ies] do[ ] not arise out of an insured incident” (Central Gen. Hosp. v Chubb Group of Ins. Cos., 90 NY2d 195, 199 [1997]; Ocean Diagnostic Imaging P.C. v Allstate Ins. Co., 6 Misc 3d 134[A], 2005 NY Slip Op 50189[U] [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2005]). Mere “unsubstantiated assertions or speculations” are insufficient (Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 327 [1986]). The affidavit of defendant’s special investigator and the attached exhibits failed to substantiate the investigator’s conclusory allegations of the insured’s participation in a “ring” that stages traffic incidents to defraud insurers (see Comprehensive Mental v Allstate Ins. Co., 14 Misc 3d 130[A], 2007 NY Slip Op 50017[U] [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2007]; Ocean Diagnostic Imaging P.C. v Allstate Ins. Co., 6 Misc 3d 134[A], 2005 NY Slip Op 50189[U] [2005], supra). In addition, the discrepancies in the testimony{**15 Misc 3d at 99} given by two passengers during their examinations under oath were insufficient to establish a founded belief that the alleged injuries did not arise out of a covered accident (see A.B. Med. Servs. PLLC v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 12 Misc 3d 129[A], 2006 NY Slip Op 51033[U] [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2006]).

We note that the insured had no obligation to appear for an examination under oath because “at the applicable time, the insurance regulations contained no authorization for examinations under oath” (Amstel Chiropractic v Omni Indem. Co., 2 Misc 3d 129[A], 2004 NY Slip Op 50088[U], *1 [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2004]). In such circumstances, the mere failure to appear for such an examination does not support an inference of “the fact or founded belief” that the underlying incident was staged to defraud.

McCabe, J.P., Tanenbaum and Lippman, JJ., concur.

Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County

011541/05

Peter P. Sweeney, J.

Plaintiff Primary Psychiatric Health, P.C. commenced this action to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits for psychological services that it provided to multiple assignors. The parties appeared before the undersigned for trial on November 9, 2006. At that time, the only open claims were for psychological services provided to assignors Everald Poole and Terry Johnson.

Before the trial began, the parties stipulated to the elements of plaintiff’s prima facie case. Defendant’s sole defense to the claims was that there was “no coverage at all” under its policy because neither of plaintiff’s assignors suffered a psychological injury as a result of the underlying motor-vehicle accident. Citing Central Gen. Hosp. v. Chubb Group of Ins. Cos., 90 NY2d 195 [1997], counsel for the defendant maintained that this defense is non-waivable and not subject to the 30 day preclusion rule.

Plaintiff rested without calling any witnesses. Defendant called two witnesses, Dr. Michael Rosenfeld and Dr. Samuel M. Rock.

Dr. Rosenfeld testified that he performed an independent psychological examination of Everland Poole on February 25, 2003 at defendant’s request. As part of his examination, he interviewed Mr. Poole to determine the nature and onset of his psychological complaints. Dr. Rosenfeld maintained that such an interview is standard practice and an essential component of a psychological examination. He further testified that he relied upon the information Mr. Poole gave him during the interview in forming his professional opinion and that psychologists routinely rely upon such information in forming professional opinions.

Plaintiff’s counsel objected and maintained that anything said by Mr. Poole during the interview was hearsay. He further maintained that since no evidence was presented demonstrating that the information provided by Mr. Poole was reliable, Dr. Rosenfeld could not rely upon such information as a basis for his opinion.

The court reserved decision and permitted Dr. Rosenfeld to testify over the objection. The parties were directed to brief the issue and the court agreed that it would consider striking Dr. Rosenfeld’s opinion testimony if plaintiff prevailed on the objection.

Dr. Rosenfeld testified that when he asked Mr. Poole to describe his psychological [*2]complaints, Mr. Poole gave him no indication that he had suffered a psychological injury. He made no complaints of suffering from any type of psychological symptomology.

Dr. Rosenfeld testified he proceed to conduct a full psychological examination of Mr. Poole and that the examination was in all respects “unremarkable.” Based upon his examination, he opined that Mr. Poole did not sustain a psychological injury as a result of the accident.

Dr. Rock was the next to testify. Dr. Rock performed an independent psychological examination of Terry Johnson at defendant’s request on April 2, 2003. He also conducted an interview of his subject as part of his examination. Plaintiff’s counsel again objected and maintained that Dr. Rock should not be allowed to base his opinion on the information he obtained from Mr. Johnson during the interview because such information was hearsay and no evidence was presented demonstrating that the information was reliable. The court again reserved decision and allowed Dr. Rock to testify over objection.

Dr. Rock testified that Mr. Johnson told him, in sum and substance, that he had no psychological complaints whatsoever following the accident. He further testified that all other aspects of his examination were within normal limits. He opined that Mr. Johnson did not suffer a psychological injury as a result of the accident.

Upon reviewing and evaluating the evidence and the memorandums of law submitted by the parties, and having had the opportunity to assess the credibility of the witnesses, the Court makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law.

Discussion:

The covering language contained in the Mandatory Personal Injury Protection Endorsement (PIP Endorsement), obligated the defendant to “pay first-party benefits to reimburse for basic economic loss sustained by an eligible injured person on account of personal injuries caused by an accident arising out of the use or operation of a motor vehicle or a motorcycle during the policy period and within the United States of America, its territories or possessions, or Canada” (11 NYCRR 65-1.1 [emphasis added] ). While an insurer is generally precluded from raising any defense to a claim for first-party no-fault benefits where the claim was not denied within 30 days of its receipt, as here, (Presbyterian Hospital in the City of New York v. Maryland Casualty Co., 90 NY2d 274 [1997], failure to deny a claim within 30 days does not preclude an insurer from defending a claim “on a strict lack of coverage ground” (Central General Hosp. v. Chubb Group of Ins. Companies, 90 NY2d 195, 198 [1997] ). Stated differently, “the preclusion remedy does not apply to a defense of no coverage at all” (90 NY2d at 202).

Since the coverage provided by the PIP Endorsement is for “personal injuries caused by an accident arising out of the use or operation of a motor vehicle or motorcycle“, if defendant is correct in its assertion that Mr. Pool and Mr. Johnson did not sustain a psychological injury as a result of the accident, the court agrees that there would be “no coverage at all” for the claims. Defendant did not have to establish that it timely denied the claims to assert this defense.

In the instant case, after plaintiff’s prima facie case was established, defendant’s experts, Dr. Rosenfeld and Dr. Rock, presented unrebutted testimony that neither of Mr. Poole or Mr. Johnson sustained a psychological injury as a result of the underlying motor vehicle accident. The court fully credits the opinions of both psychologists and finds that there is no coverage for the claims.

The court rejects plaintiff’s contention that Dr. Rosenfeld and Dr. Rock should have been [*3]precluded from basing their professional opinions, in part, on the information obtained from plaintiff’s assignors during the independent psychological examinations. While it is true that an expert witness must generally rely on facts “in the record or personally known to the witness”(Cassano v. Hagstrom, 5 NY2d 643, 646 [1959], rearg. denied 6 NY2d 882 [1959] ), “[u]nder the professional reliability exception, material not in evidence may be used to formulate an expert’s opinion provided that the material not in evidence is of the kind accepted in the profession as a basis in forming an opinion, and the material not in evidence is accompanied by evidence establishing its reliability” (Scanga v. Family Practice Associates of Rockland, P.C., 27 AD3d 547, 548 [2nd Dep’t 2006]; citing, Hambsch v. New York City Tr. Auth., 63 NY2d 723, 726 [1984]; People v. Sugden, 35 NY2d 453, 460-461 [1974] ; Wagman v. Bradshaw, 292 AD2d 84, 85 [2nd Dep’t 2002] ). Once the predicates of the exception have been met,” hearsay testimony given by [an] expert . . . for the limited purpose of informing the [fact finder] of the basis of the expert’s opinion and not for the truth of the matters related’ is admissible” (People v Wright, 266 AD2d 246, 247 [1999], lv denied 94 NY2d 831 [1999], quoting People v Campbell, 197 AD2d 930, 932-933 [1993], lv denied 83 NY2d 850 [1994]).

Defendant demonstrated that the information provided by plaintiff’s assignors during their psychological examinations is of the kind of out-of-court material accepted in the field of psychology as a basis in forming a professional opinion. Indeed, plaintiff concedes this point. Plaintiff correctly asserts, however, that no evidence was presented demonstrating that the information provided by plaintiff’s was reliable.

In Home Care Ortho. Med. Supply, Inc. v American Manufactures Mut. Ins. Co., 2007 NY Slip Op 50302(U) [App. Term, First Dep’t 2006], the Appellate Term held that the lower court erred in precluding defendant’s expert “from testifying because his opinion [was] based, at least in part, on his review of the assignors’ medical records.” The court reasoned that “[p]laintiff may not be heard to challenge the reliability of the assignors’ medical records and reports, which, in response to defendant’s verification requests, were affirmatively relied upon by plaintiff as proof of claim” (id.); see also, Cross Continental Medical, P.C. v. Allstate Ins. Co., 822 NYS2d 356, 357 {13 Misc 3d 10} [App. Term, First Dep’t 2006] ).

In this court’s view, the holding in Home Care Ortho. Med. Supply, Inc. is consistent with the legislative policy reflected in the numerous provisions of the No-Fault Law which provide for the prompt verification and disposition of claims (Motor Vehicle Acc. Indemnification Corp. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 89 NY2d 214, 222 [1996]; Presbyterian Hosp. in City of New York v. Maryland Cas. Co., 90 NY2d 274, 281[1997]; Dermatossian v. New York City Tr. Auth., 67 NY2d 219, 224-225 [1986]; Stephen Fogel Psychological, P.C. v. Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 827 NYS2d 217, 220 {35 AD3d 720} [2nd Dep’t 2006] ).

In this case, the interviews conducted by defendant’s examining psychologists were essential components of the psychological examinations defendant had requested as additional verification of the claims. There is no basis to treat the information that was obtained from these interviews differently from information that defendant had obtained from the medical reports and records in Home Care Ortho. Med. Supply, Inc. In both cases, the information was obtained by the defendant in response to a verification request. The court therefore holds that the plaintiff in this case cannot challenge the reliability of the information obtained by defendant’s examining [*4]psychologists during the interviews.

In Home Care Ortho. Med. Supply, Inc., it was the plaintiff that provided the verification whereas in this case, it plaintiff’s assignors provided the verification. This distinction, in the court’s view, is irrelevant. Certainly, if plaintiff’s assignors were prosecuting this action, under Home Care Ortho. Med. Supply, Inc., they could not challenge the reliability of any verification they provided to the defendant in response to a verification request. Since an assignee “stands in the shoes” of an assignor and acquires no greater rights than its assignor (Long Island Radiology v. Allstate Ins. Co., 36 AD3d 763 [2nd Dep’t 2007]; Arena Const. Co. v. Sackaris & Sons, 282 AD2d 489 [2nd Dep’t 2007] ), logic dictates that an assignee should be estopped from challenging the reliability of verification provided by its assignor. This is especially true given the fact that the No-Fault regulations entitle insurers to obtain verification directly from eligible injured persons (11 NYCRR 65-3.5( c), 11 NYCRR 65-3.5(d); 11 NYCRR 65-1.1).

For all of the above reasons, it is hereby

ORDERED that judgment be entered in favor of the defendant dismissing the claims.

This constitutes the decision and order of the court.

Dated:March 27, 2007________________________________

PETER P. SWEENEY

Civil Court Judge

—[*1] Siben & Siben, LLP, Bay Shore, N.Y. (Shayne, Dachs, Stanisci, Corker & Sauer [Jonathan A. Dachs] of counsel), for appellant.

Cullen and Dykman, LLP, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Joseph Miller of counsel), for respondent.

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 to stay arbitration of a claim for underinsured motorist benefits, Mark W. Ward appeals from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Henry, J.), dated March 31, 2005, which granted the petition and permanently stayed the arbitration.

Ordered that the order and judgment is reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, the petition is denied, and the proceeding is dismissed.

The appellant was injured in an automobile accident, at which time the appellant’s vehicle was insured under a policy issued by New York Central Mutual Fire Insurance Company (hereinafter the petitioner). The policy provided, inter alia,

“II. Damages for Bodily Injury Caused by Uninsured Motor Vehicles

“We will pay all sums that the insured or the insured’s legal representative shall be legally entitled to recover as damages from the owner or operator of an uninsured motor vehicle because of bodily injury sustained by the insured, caused by an accident arising out of such uninsured motor vehicle’s ownership, maintenance or use, subject to the Exclusions, Conditions, Limits and other provisions of this SUM endorsement . . .

[*2]“V. Part E—DUTIES AFTER AN ACCIDENT OR LOSS, Part E is replaced by the following: DUTIES AFTER AN ACCIDENT OR LOSS, We have no duty to provide coverage under this policy if the failure to comply with the following duties is prejudicial to us: A: We must be notified as soon as reasonably possible of how, when and where the accident or loss happened. Notice should also include the names and addresses of any injured persons and of any witnesses.”

It is well settled that a contract of insurance is no different from any other contract and must be construed in a fair and reasonable manner, having regard to the risk and subject matter of the policy, and that special rules such as liberal construction in favor of the insured and against the insurer who drew the contract apply (see Matter of Mostow v State Farm Ins. Cos., 88 NY2d 321 [1996]; Ace Wire & Cable Co. v Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 60 NY2d 390 [1983]; General Assur. Co. v Schmitt, 265 AD2d 299, 300 [1999] [internal quotation marks omitted] [“The law is clear that if an insurance policy is written in such language as to be doubtful or uncertain in its meaning, all ambiguity must be resolved in favor of the insured against the insurer”]).

In the present case, the petitioner clearly assumed a contractual obligation to provide coverage for the appellant unless the appellant’s failure to comply with his contractual duties is prejudicial to it. Here, the appellant substantially complied with the policy’s notice and proof of claim conditions insofar as he supplied the petitioner with prompt written notice of the accident, an application for no fault benefits, a sworn police accident report, and authorizations to obtain medical records. The petitioner demonstrated no prejudice in this matter stemming from the appellant’s failure to submit the proffered proof of claim form (see Matter of Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. [Mackey], 25 AD3d 905 [2006] [the insured’s attorney supplied prompt written notice of the accident, made a claim for no-fault benefits, and indicated that SUM coverage was implicated. Written notice regarding a SUM claim was repeated at least twice over the ensuing six months. The insured forwarded to the insurer the police accident report as well as the pertinent medical records. The insurer did not deny receiving any of these various letters and documents from the insured. The insurer failed to show any prejudice and, under the circumstances, was not permitted to disclaim SUM coverage]).

This Court has held that where an insurance policy is conditioned upon the insured’s timely completion and return of proof of claim forms, the insured’s failure to do so, or to have a reasonable excuse for the failure, is a breach of a condition precedent that vitiates coverage and justifies a permanent stay of arbitration (see Matter of New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v Daley, 273 AD2d 315 [2000]; Matter of New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v Shepard, 249 AD2d 549 [1998]).

For many years, New York has followed the rule that an insured’s failure to provide timely notice of an accident relieves the carrier of its obligation to perform, regardless of whether it can demonstrate prejudice (see Security Mut. Ins. Co. of N.Y. v Acker-Fitzsimons Corp., 31 NY2d 436, 442-443 [1972]). This has been known as the no-prejudice rule.

Recently, there has been a shift away from the no-prejudice rule. In Matter of Brandon (Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co.) (97 NY2d 491 [2002]), the Court required a supplementary uninsured/underinsured motorists (hereinafter SUM) insurer to demonstrate prejudice when seeking to disclaim coverage based upon untimely notice of legal action. The Court stated that, “Under these circumstances, and given the protection SUM insurers already enjoy by virtue of the notice of claim requirement and the clauses governing settlement, insurers relying on the late notice of legal action [*3]defense should be required to demonstrate prejudice. We place the burden of proving prejudice on the insurer because it has the relevant information about its own claims-handling procedures and because the alternative approach would saddle the policyholder with the task of proving a negative” (id. at 498).

Since the issuance of the order and judgment appealed from, the Court of Appeals has reaffirmed this shift away from the no-prejudice rule. In Rekemeyer v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (4 NY3d 468, 474-476 [2005]), the Court stated, “Plaintiff also urges this Court to relax its application of the no-prejudice rule in SUM cases where the carrier has been timely put on notice of the accident. This argument is persuasive. The rule in New York has been for years that an insured’s failure to provide timely notice of an accident relieves the carrier of its obligation to perform regardless of whether it can demonstrate prejudice (see Security Mut. Ins. Co. of N.Y. v Acker-Fitzsimons Corp., 31 NY2d 436, 442-443 [1972]). This rule is known as the no-prejudice rule. Although this rule has sometimes been characterized as the ‘traditional rule,’ it is actually a limited exception to two established contract principles; ‘ (1) that ordinarily one seeking to escape the obligation to perform under a contract must demonstrate a material breach or prejudice; and (2) that a contractual duty [requiring strict compliance] ordinarily will not be construed as a condition precedent absent clear language showing that the parties intended to make it a condition’ (Unigard Sec. Ins. Co. v North Riv. Ins. Co., 79 NY2d 576, 581 [1992] [citations omitted]). The idea behind strict compliance with the notice provision in an insurance contract was to protect the carrier against fraud or collusion (see id.) . . .The facts of the current case, while different from Brandon, also warrant a showing of prejudice by the carrier. Here, plaintiff gave timely notice of the accident and made a claim for no-fault benefits soon thereafter. That notice was sufficient to promote the valid policy objective of curbing fraud or collusion. Moreover, the record indicates that State Farm undertook an investigation of the accident. It also required plaintiff to undergo medical exams in December 1998 and February 2000. Under these circumstances, application of a rule that contravenes general contract principles is not justified. Absent a showing of prejudice, State Farm should not be entitled to a windfall (Brandon, 97 NY2d at 496 n 3, citing Clementi v Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 16 P3d 223, 230 [Colo 2001]). Additionally, State Farm should bear the burden of establishing prejudice ‘because it has the relevant information about its own claims-handling procedures and because the alternative approach would saddle the policyholder with the task of proving a negative’ (id. at 498; see also Unigard, 79 NY2d at 584 [placing the burden of showing prejudice on the reinsurer])”

Recently, this Court followed the Rekemeyer decision in Matter of State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v Rinaldi (27 AD3d 476 [2006]) and reversed an order granting the insurer’s petition for a stay on the basis that the insurer had received timely notice of the accident and therefore was required to demonstrate prejudice. “Where, as here, ‘an insured previously gives timely notice of the accident, the carrier must establish that it is prejudiced by a late notice of SUM claim before it may [*4]properly disclaim coverage’ (Rekemeyer v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 4 NY3d 468, 476 [2005]). No such showing of prejudice was made by the carrier in this case” (Matter of State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v Rinaldi, supra at 476-477).

In the present case, the appellant argues that the notice of claim exception to the no-prejudice rule set forth by the Court in Rekemeyer should now be extended to apply to proof of claim. We agree.

Here, the facts, as in Rekemeyer, warrant a showing of prejudice by the insurance carrier. The petitioner did not meet this burden of showing that the appellant’s failure to comply with his contractual duties was prejudicial to it. Therefore, the petitioner was bound by its contractual duty to provide coverage for the appellant, and the court erred in granting the petition and permanently staying the arbitration.

The appellant’s remaining contentions that the petitioner failed to timely disclaim coverage and that it waived its right to rely on the subject provision are improperly raised for the first time on appeal and we decline to consider them. Ritter, J.P., Santucci, Skelos and Dickerson, JJ., concur.

—[*1] Joseph Henig, P.C., Bellmore, N.Y., for appellants.

Epstein, Rayhill & Frankini, Woodbury, N.Y. (James Frankini and Frank Marotta of counsel), for respondent.

In an action to recover no-fault medical payments under contracts of insurance, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (McCarty, J.), dated August 2, 2006, which denied the motion of the plaintiff Montefiore Medical Center, as assignee of Sherice Haye, for summary judgment in its favor on the first cause of action.

Ordered that the appeal by the plaintiff New York and Presbyterian Hospital, as assignee of Haydee Marca, is dismissed, as that plaintiff is not aggrieved by the order appealed from (see CPLR 5511), and it is further,

Ordered that the order is affirmed; and it is further,

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

Contrary to the contention of the plaintiff Montefiore Medical Center, as assignee of Sherice Haye (hereinafter Montefiore), the Supreme Court properly denied its motion for summary judgment in its favor on the first cause of action. In response to Montefiore’s prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see generally Presbyterian Hosp. in City of N.Y. v Maryland Cas. Co., 90 NY2d 274 [1997]; New York Univ. Hosp. Rusk Inst. v Hartford Acc. & Indem. Co., [*2]32 AD3d 458 [2006]; Hospital for Joint Diseases v Allstate Ins. Co., 21 AD3d 348 [2005]), the defendant submitted the hospital records of the patient and other material which raised a triable issue of fact as to whether the condition for which the patient was treated was unrelated to her motor vehicle accident (see generally St. Luke’s Roosevelt Hosp. v Allstate Ins. Co., 303 AD2d 743 [2003]). Accordingly, a triable issue of fact exists regarding whether the defendant’s denial of no-fault benefits in this case was proper.

Montefiore’s remaining contentions are without merit. Mastro, J.P., Florio, Carni and McCarthy, JJ., concur.

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 (Karen B. Rothenberg, J.), entered March 2, 2006. The order granted defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s action for failure to comply with a court-ordered examination before trial and denied plaintiff’s cross motion to vacate, renew and reargue the order of the same court (Sarah L. Krauss, J.), entered December 7, 2004, which denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and granted defendant’s cross motion to the extent of compelling one of plaintiff’s employees to appear for an examination before trial.

Appeal from so much of the order as denied that branch of plaintiff’s cross motion which sought reargument dismissed.

Order, insofar as reviewed, 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 an order compelling plaintiff, plaintiff’s assignor and the assignor’s treating physician to appear for examinations before trial. In its reply papers, plaintiff did not oppose that branch of defendant’s cross motion which sought an order compelling depositions. By order entered December 7, 2004, the court denominated defendant’s cross motion as one seeking summary judgment as well as to compel examinations before trial, denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, denied defendant summary [*2]judgment and granted, on default, defendant’s cross motion to the extent of compelling one of plaintiff’s employees with relevant knowledge to appear for an examination before trial within 60 days, provided that the defendant re-serve a deposition notice within 20 days of said order. Thereafter, defendant moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground that, on December 8, 2004, it had served plaintiff with a copy of the prior order with notice of entry and that on December 10, 2004, defendant served plaintiff with a notice to take deposition. However, plaintiff failed to produce an employee for the court-
ordered deposition. Plaintiff cross-moved to vacate the December 7, 2004 order and for reargument and renewal of said order. By order entered March 2, 2006, from which plaintiff now appeals, the court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint and denied plaintiff’s cross motion.While plaintiff is appealing from the branch of the order which denied its motion for reargument, no appeal lies from an order denying reargument (see Coque v Wildflower Estates Developers, Inc., 31 AD3d 484 [2006]). To the extent plaintiff is also appealing from the branch of the order which denied its motion seeking renewal, CPLR 2221 (e) (2) provides that a motion for leave to renew a prior motion must be based upon “new facts not offered on the prior motion that would change the prior determination” or must show “that there has been a change in the law that would change the prior determination.” Furthermore, the motion papers must contain a “reasonable justification for the failure to present such facts on the prior motion” (CPLR 2221 [e] [3]). In the instant case, plaintiff did not proffer a reasonable justification for its failure to present the facts upon which its renewal motion was based to the motion court on its prior motion for summary judgment (see T & B Port Washington, Inc. v McDonough, 34 AD3d 785 [2006]; Renna v Gullo, 19 AD3d 472 [2005]). Accordingly, the branch of plaintiff’s motion seeking renewal was properly denied.

Furthermore, in order to vacate the December 7, 2004 order insofar as it granted defendant’s cross motion upon plaintiff’s default, plaintiff was required to demonstrate, inter alia, a reasonable excuse for its default (see Gironda v Katzen, 19 AD3d 644 [2005]; Liotti v Peace, 15 AD3d 452 [2005]; Abrams v City of New York, 13 AD3d 566 [2004]). Inasmuch as plaintiff failed to proffer a reasonable excuse as to why it did not oppose defendant’s cross motion seeking an order compelling examinations before trial, the lower court properly denied that branch of plaintiff’s cross motion seeking vacatur of the December 7, 2004 order.

Moreover, as noted by the Court of Appeals, “[i]f the credibility of court orders and the integrity of our judicial system are to be maintained, a litigant cannot ignore court orders with impunity” (Kihl v Pfeffer, 94 NY2d 118, 123 [1999]). In the case at bar, the branch of defendant’s motion which sought to compel depositions was granted on default and since plaintiff failed to obtain a stay of said order, plaintiff was obligated to produce one of its employees for an examination before trial (id.). Plaintiff’s willful failure to produce an employee for the court-ordered deposition resulted in an additional motion by defendant to dismiss the complaint, thereby wasting scarce judicial resources, and such behavior cannot be tolerated (see Fair Price Med. Supply Corp. v
ELRAC Inc., 12 Misc 3d 126[A], 2006 NY Slip Op 50864[U] [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists]). [*3]Accordingly, the order, insofar as reviewed, is affirmed.

Pesce, P.J., Weston Patterson and Rios, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: March 26, 2007

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

APPELLATE TERM: 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS

Appeal from an order of the District Court of Nassau County, Third District (Randy Sue Marber, J.), dated September 30, 2005, and from an order of the same court, entered February 22, 2006. The order dated September 30, 2005, insofar as appealed from, denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. The order entered February 22, 2006 denied plaintiff’s motion to vacate the order dated September 30, 2006 and to renew plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment.

Appeal from order entered February 22, 2006 dismissed.

Order dated September 30, 2005, insofar as appealed from, affirmed without costs.

In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment was supported by an affirmation from plaintiff’s counsel, an affidavit by an officer of plaintiff, and various documents annexed thereto. The affidavit executed by plaintiff’s officer stated in a conclusory manner that the documents attached to plaintiff’s motion papers were plaintiff’s business records. By order dated September 30, 2005, the court below denied the motion on the ground, inter alia, that plaintiff failed to make a prima facie case because the affidavit executed by plaintiff’s corporate officer failed to set forth facts sufficient to demonstrate personal knowledge of the facts set forth therein. Plaintiff appeals from the denial of its motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff also appeals from the order entered February 22, 2006 which denied its motion to vacate the September 30, 2005 order and to renew [*2]its motion for summary judgment.

Since the affidavit submitted by plaintiff’s corporate officer was insufficient to establish that said officer possessed personal knowledge of plaintiff’s practices and procedures so as to lay a proper foundation for the admissibility, as business records, of the documents annexed to plaintiff’s moving papers, plaintiff failed to make a prima facie showing of its entitlement to summary judgment (see Fortune Med., P.C. v Allstate Ins. Co., ____ Misc 3d ____[A], 2007 NY Slip Op 50243[U] [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists]; 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 order dated September 30, 2005 properly denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment.

To the extent plaintiff also appeals from the order entered February 22, 2006, plaintiff has raised no issue with respect thereto and, thus, said appeal is dismissed as abandoned.

Rudolph, P.J., Tanenbaum and LaCava, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: March 26, 2007

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 (Jack M. Battaglia, J.), entered February 1, 2006. The order denied plaintiff’s renewed motion for leave to enter a default judgment.

Order affirmed without costs.

In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, plaintiff moved for an order granting it leave to enter a default judgment upon defendant’s failure to appear or answer the complaint. The motion was denied with leave to renew upon submission of a proper affidavit by plaintiff. Thereafter, plaintiff renewed its motion with what it deemed to be a sufficient affidavit. The motion court
again denied the motion, on the ground that plaintiff did not adequately establish submission of the claim forms. The instant appeal ensued.

CPLR 3215 (f) requires that upon any application for a default judgment, the applicant must, inter alia, file “proof of the facts constituting the claim, the default and the amount due by affidavit made by the party.” The affidavit in support of the motion must be made upon personal knowledge of the facts (see Fiorino v Yung Poon Yung, 281 AD2d 513 [2001]; Finnegan v Sheahan, 269 AD2d 491 [2000]) and must establish a prima facie case (Matter of Dyno v Rose, 260 AD2d 694 [1999]). If the court determines that the affidavit fails to establish a prima facie case, the applicant is not entitled to the requested relief, even on default (id. at 698). [*2]

In the instant action, the affidavit of plaintiff’s corporate officer, which plaintiff submitted on its renewed motion, was insufficient to establish that said officer possessed personal knowledge of plaintiff’s practices and procedures so as to lay a foundation for the admission, as business records, of the documents annexed to plaintiff’s motion papers. Accordingly, plaintiff did not establish a prima facie case (see Dan Med., P.C. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 14 Misc 3d 44 [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2006]). In any event, even if the affidavit had laid a proper foundation for the admissibility of the annexed documents, the court below correctly found that plaintiff failed to establish that it submitted the claim forms to defendant (see Magnezit Med. Care, P.C. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 11 Misc 3d 135[A], 2006 NY Slip Op 50473[U] [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists]; see also PDG Psychological P.C. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 12 Misc 3d 144[A], 2006 NY Slip Op 51432[U] [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists]).

Accordingly, since plaintiff did not demonstrate a prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, the court below properly denied plaintiff’s renewed motion for leave to enter a default judgment.

Pesce, P.J., Weston Patterson and Rios, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: March 26, 2007

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 (Howard G. Lane, J.), entered October 27, 2005, deemed an appeal from a judgment entered on February 2, 2006 (see CPLR 5501 [c]). The judgment, entered pursuant to the October 27, 2005 order granting plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $7,831.65.

Judgment reversed without costs, order granting plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment vacated and plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment denied.

In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment was supported by an affirmation from plaintiff’s
counsel, an affidavit by a corporate officer of plaintiff and various documents annexed thereto. The affidavit executed by plaintiff’s corporate officer stated in a conclusory manner that the documents attached to plaintiff’s motion papers were plaintiff’s business records. In opposition, defendant argued, inter alia, that the affidavit by plaintiff’s corporate officer failed to lay a proper foundation for the documents annexed to plaintiff’s moving papers and that, as a result, plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case. The court below granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and the instant appeal by defendant ensued. [*2]

Inasmuch as the affidavit submitted by plaintiff’s corporate officer was insufficient to establish that said officer possessed personal knowledge of plaintiff’s practices and procedures so as to lay a foundation for the admission, as business records, of the documents annexed to plaintiff’s moving papers, plaintiff failed to make a prima facie
showing of its entitlement to summary judgment (see 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 judgment should be reversed, the order granting plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment vacated and plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment denied. Pesce, P.J., Weston Patterson and Rios, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: March 26, 2007

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 (Delores J. Thomas, J.), entered January 26, 2006. 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’s motion for summary judgment was supported by an affirmation from plaintiff’s counsel, an affidavit by a corporate officer of plaintiff and various documents annexed thereto. The affidavit executed by plaintiff’s corporate officer stated in a conclusory manner that the documents attached to plaintiff’s motion papers were plaintiff’s business records. In opposition, defendant argued, inter alia, that the affidavit by plaintiff’s corporate officer failed to set forth facts sufficient to demonstrate personal knowledge of the facts set forth therein and that, as a result, plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case. Plaintiff appeals from the denial of its motion for summary judgment.

Inasmuch as the affidavit submitted by plaintiff’s corporate officer was insufficient to establish that said officer possessed personal knowledge of plaintiff’s practices and procedures so as to lay a foundation for the admission, as business records, of the documents annexed to plaintiff’s moving papers, plaintiff failed to make a prima facie showing of its entitlement to summary judgment (see Dan Med., P.C. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 14 Misc 3d 44 [*2][App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2006]). Consequently, plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment was properly denied.

Pesce, P.J., Weston Patterson and Rios, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: March 26, 2007