Decided on March 26, 2021

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

[*1]

Gary Tsirelman, P.C., Brooklyn (Stefan Belinfanti of counsel), for appellant.

Law Office of Goldstein, Flecker & Hopkins, Melville (Lauren Hirschfeld of counsel), for respondent.

Order, Appellate Term, First Department, entered on or about April 13, 2020, which affirmed an order of the Civil Court, New York County (Judy H. Kim, J.), entered April 18, 2019, granting defendant’s motion to vacate, in effect, so much of a judgment, same court (Carol R. Sharpe, J.), entered May 25, 2018, as awarded plaintiff attorneys’ fees pursuant to Insurance Department Regulations (11 NYCRR) § 65-4.6 (c) (former 11 NYCRR 65-4.6 [d]), unanimously reversed, on the law, with costs, and the matter remanded for further proceedings and an amended judgment in accordance herewith.

The issue before us in this action to recover first-party No-Fault insurance benefits is whether the failure of an eligible injured person (EIP) to attend an independent medical examination (IME) is a “policy issue” for the purpose of the no-fault insurance law denial of claim (NYS NF-10) form, as prescribed by 11 NYCRR Appendix 13, and an award of hourly attorneys’ fees, as provided by 11 NYCRR 65-4.6 (c). We conclude that an EIP’s failure to attend an IME is a “policy issue” and therefore that plaintiff may be awarded attorneys’ fees pursuant to 11 NYCRR 65-4.6 (c). However, we remand the matter to Civil Court for further proceedings, as explained below.

“Eligible Injured Person” is defined in the Mandatory Personal Injury Protection Endorsement (MPIPE) that must be contained in every motor vehicle owner’s policy of liability insurance (11 NYCRR 65-1.1 [d]). The MPIPE also sets forth certain conditions of and exclusions from coverage. For example, under the subheading “Proof of Claim. Medical, Work Loss, and Other Necessary Expenses” (subpara d), the MPIPE says, “The [EIP] shall submit to medical examination by physicians selected by, or acceptable to, the Company, when, and as often as, the Company may reasonably require.”

The NYS NF-10 form lists eight “policy issue” reasons for denial of claim: “Policy not in force on date of accident” (box 3); “Injured person excluded under policy conditions or exclusion” (box 4); “Policy conditions violated” (box 5 [a] and [b]), referring to late notices of claim; “Injured person not an ‘Eligible Injured Person’ ” (box 6); “Injuries did not arise out of use or operation of a motor vehicle” (box 7); and “Claim not within the scope of your election under Optional Basic Economic Loss coverage” (box 8).

We find that “policy conditions or exclusion” under which the injured person is excluded from coverage in the “policy issue” reason in box 4 of the NYS NF-10 form refers to the conditions and exclusions of the MPIPE (11 NYCRR 65-1.1 [d]), which include, as noted above, that an EIP must submit to IMEs as required by the insurer. We therefore conclude that an IME no-show defense is a box 4 reason for denial. An EIP who does not attend an IME fails to satisfy a condition precedent to coverage under the policy, voiding the policy ab initio (PV Holding Corp. v Hank Ross Med., P.C., 188 AD3d 429, 430 [1st Dept 2020]). Thus, an insurer who denies a claim [*2]for first-party No-Fault benefits on the basis of the injured person’s failure to attend an IME properly does so by checking box 4 on the denial of claim form, and therefore an injured person’s failure to attend an IME is a “policy issue” both according to the denial of claim form and for purposes of awarding attorneys’ fees under 11 NYCRR 65-4.6 (c). We are unpersuaded by the reasoning of other courts that have reached the contrary conclusion. We also note that it is unclear to what the terms “policy conditions or exclusion” as used in box 4 of the denial of claim form refer, if not to the policy conditions and exclusions listed in the MPIPE.

Moreover, statutes and regulations must be interpreted in a manner that does not render them meaningless, unreasonable, or absurd (see McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 1, Statutes § 145; Long v State of New York, 7 NY3d 269, 273 [2006]). For this reason, we also reject the overly restrictive reading of 11 NYCRR 65-4.6 (c) urged by defendant, which would interpret “a policy issue as enumerated on the prescribed denial of claim form” (id.) as referring only to those specific justifications delineated on the form, and only as they are delineated on the form. That interpretation would both render some of the reasons on the denial of claim form meaningless and require the Department of Financial Services effectively to reproduce the MPIPE on the form to capture all the possible reasons for which a No-Fault benefits claim may be denied.

Although we conclude, for the foregoing reasons, that plaintiff may be awarded attorneys’ fees in this case under 11 NYCRR 65-4.6 (c), it is entirely unclear from the record whether the amount that was awarded was calculated correctly. There is no documentation supporting plaintiff’s claim for attorneys’ fees, the parties’ calculations as to the amount of attorneys’ fees owed and due differ irreconcilably, and it is uncertain whether the unpaid amount of the judgment was, in fact, unpaid attorneys’ fees in the first place. Accordingly, upon remittal, Civil Court should ascertain the amount of attorneys’ fees owed to plaintiff under 11 NYCRR 65-4.6 (c) and whether any amount either thereof or of the judgment as a whole remains outstanding, crediting defendant for the payments that it has already made. Concur—Renwick, J.P., Mazzarelli, Singh, González, JJ. [Prior Case History: 67 Misc 3d 129(A), 2020 NY Slip Op 50414(U).]

Goldberg, Miller & Rubin (Eli Shmulik of counsel), for appellant. Law Office of Gabriel & Moroff, LLC, for respondent (no brief filed).

Appeal from an order of the District Court of Suffolk County, Third District (C. Stephen Hackeling, J.), dated July 8, 2020. The order denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

ORDERED that the order is reversed, without costs, and defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted.

Plaintiff commenced this action in the District Court of Suffolk County on July 11, 2018 to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits for services that had been provided to its assignor, who was allegedly injured in a motor vehicle accident on November 17, 2017. The complaint stated that the claim number was C067157NY17. Defendant served an answer and, thereafter, commenced a declaratory judgment action in the Supreme Court, New York County, against the present provider, among others, and the provider’s assignor. By order and judgment entered on December 10, 2019, the Supreme Court granted, on default, a motion by the insurer herein for a default judgment against, among others, the present provider and its assignor, and ordered, adjudged and declared that the insurer has no duty to pay any no-fault benefits to the provider and its assignor arising out of “the November 17, 2017 collision referenced in the complaint (also known as claim number C067157NY17).” Relying upon the Supreme Court’s order and judgment, defendant moved in the District Court for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Plaintiff opposed, and, by order dated July 8, 2020, the District Court denied defendant’s motion.

Contrary to the determination of the District Court, plaintiff’s action is barred under the doctrine of res judicata, as the declaratory order and judgment of the Supreme Court is a [*2]conclusive final determination, notwithstanding that it was entered on default, since res judicata applies to a judgment taken by default which has not been vacated (see Lazides v P & G Enters., 58 AD3d 607 [2009]; Matter of Allstate Ins. Co. v Williams, 29 AD3d 688 [2006]; Matter of Eagle Ins Co. v Facey, 272 AD2d 399 [2000]; EBM Med. Health Care, P.C. v Republic W. Ins., 38 Misc 3d 1 [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2012]). In light of the Supreme Court’s order and judgment, the District Court should have granted defendant’s motion, as any judgment in favor of plaintiff in the present action would destroy or impair rights or interests established by the order and judgment in the declaratory judgment action (see Schuylkill Fuel Corp. v Nieberg Realty Corp., 250 NY 304, 306-307 [1929]).

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

GARGUILO, J.P., EMERSON and VOUTSINAS, JJ., concur.

Hollander Legal Group, P.C. (Allan S. Hollander of counsel), for appellant. The Rybak Firm, PLLC (Oleg Rybak of counsel), for respondent (no brief filed).

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Robin Kelly Sheares, J.), entered August 9, 2019. The order, insofar as appealed from, 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 limited the issues for trial, in effect pursuant to CPLR 3212 (g), to whether plaintiff’s assignor failed to appear for the duly scheduled EUOs. More specifically, the court found, among other things, that “[a]lthough defendant ha[d] established that it mailed EUO scheduling letters to The Rybak [Law] Firm, PLLC and plaintiff’s assignor at the address stated on the NF-2, there is an issue of fact as to the assignor’s non-appearance for examinations under oath as defendant has not established that [the assignor] was represented by counsel.”

To establish its prima facie entitlement to summary judgment dismissing a complaint on the ground that a plaintiff’s assignor failed to appear for an EUO, an insurer must demonstrate, as a matter of law, that it twice duly demanded an EUO from the assignor, that the assignor twice failed to appear, and that the insurer issued a timely denial of the claims (see Interboro Ins. Co. v Clennon, 113 AD3d 596, 597 [2014]). Contrary to the determination of the Civil Court, the affirmations of defendant’s counsel, as well as the transcripts of the EUOs, were sufficient to establish that plaintiff’s assignor had failed to appear for the EUOs. It is irrelevant whether plaintiff’s assignor was represented by counsel, as defendant was only required to mail the EUO scheduling letters to plaintiff’s assignor (see 11 NYCRR 65-3.5 [e]; 3.6 [b]). 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) findings 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., ELLIOT and TOUSSAINT, JJ., concur.

CV- 704318-19/NY

John E. Fagan, Esq.
Restorative Chiropractic Solutions

Dianne M. Galluzzo, Esq. and Michael A. Soriano
State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co.

Recitation, as required by CPLR § 2219(a), of the papers considered in the review of this motion:

Papers/Numbered

Notices of Motion and Affidavits Annexed 1

Answering Affidavits and Notice of Cross-Motion 2

Replying Affirmation and Opposition to Cross-Motion 3

Exhibits

Email Correspondence 4

Other

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff medical provider, Restorative Chiropractic Solutions, PC, brings this action against insurer defendant State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co., to recover first-party no-fault benefits for medical services provided to its assignor, Lourdes Clyne (“plaintiff assignor”). Defendant makes the instant motion for summary judgment based on its denials of the claims. The bulk of the denials — three out of five of them — allege material misrepresentation in the procurement of the policy. Defendant asks that if this court does not grant summary judgment on a proper denial of material misrepresentation, that it determine its denials were at a minimum timely. Plaintiff [*2]opposes the motion and cross-moves for summary judgment.

Plaintiff assignor was involved in a motor vehicle accident on June 14, 2017, and sought medical treatment. This action seeks reimbursement for five claims corresponding to dates of service between August 1, 2017 to September 7, 2017, totaling $505.98. Defendant supplied the following chart that provides information relevant to its request for verification and denials:

Plaintiff assignor acquired the policy with a residential address in Florida. The subject motor vehicle accident occurred in New York. Defendant’s investigation of the claims prompted questions about plaintiff assignor’s residency and principal garaging location of the insured vehicle (Galluzo Aff., ¶¶ 18-19). Defendant mailed verification request letters to plaintiff seeking an examination under oath (“EUO”) of plaintiff assignor to ascertain if there was a material misrepresentation in procurement of the policy (Galluzo Aff., Exh. E).

The EUO was held on November 3, 2017 (Galluzo Aff., Exh. G). Plaintiff assignor testified that at the time of the subject accident she resided in Brooklyn, New York, and principally garaged the insured vehicle there as well (id.; Galluzo Aff., ¶¶ 20 — 22 ). In fact, plaintiff assignor stated that the subject vehicle never entered the state of Florida (Galluzo Aff., Exh. G, p 44). Defendant claims that had it known plaintiff assignor resided in New York and would principally garage the subject vehicle there, it would not have issued the policy (Galluzo Aff., ¶ 22). Defendant issued Denial of Claim Forms (“NF-10s”) on September 12, 2017, and November 27, 2017 (Galluzo Aff., Exh. D).

DISCUSSION

The movant on a motion for summary judgment motion must make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by tendering sufficient evidence to eliminate any material issues of fact from the case (Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853 [1985]; Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]). CPLR 3212(b) provides that a summary judgment motion must be supported by an affidavit of a person with knowledge of the facts, as well as other admissible evidence (see JMD Holding Corp. v Congress Fin. Corp., 4 NY3d 373, 384-85 [2005]). Once such a showing is made, “the burden shifts to the party [*3]opposing the motion for summary judgment to produce evidentiary proof in admissible form sufficient to establish the existence of material issues of fact which require a trial of the action” (Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986], citing Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d at 562).

The no-fault insurance scheme is designed to provide a quick resolution of the reimbursement of claims, avoid litigation, and incentivize an insurer to seek verification of a claim, deny it, or pay it in short order (see Viviane Etienne Med. Care, P.C. v Country-Wide Ins. Co., 25 NY3d 498, 506-07 [2015]; Matter of Med. Socy. of State v Serio, 100 NY2d 854, 860 [2003]). The procedure to verify, deny, or pay claims is codified and governed by Insurance Law § 5106(a).

A claimant has 45 days after medical services are rendered to submit claims (see 11 NYCRR 65-1.1). An insurer may request verification of the claim(s) which shall be requested within 15 business days of receipt of the prescribed verification forms (see 11 NYCRR 65-3.5 [b]). If the requested verification has not been received within 30 days of the request, the insurer shall make a second request within 10 calendar days and, at the same time, “inform the applicant and such person’s attorney of the reason(s) why the claim is delayed by identifying in writing the missing verification and the party from whom it was requested” (11 NYCRR 65-3.6 [b]). An insurer shall either pay or deny the claim in whole or in part within 30 calendar days after proof of the claim(s), including the requested verification, is received (see 11 NYCRR 65-3.8[c]).

Timeliness of Defendant’s Denials

Even though plaintiff did not submit any evidence, this court searches the record presented and determines that plaintiff’s initial burden is met. There is no dispute that plaintiff timely submitted its claims to defendant. Defendant asks this court to find that it timely denied plaintiff’s claims as a matter of law. The claims for dates of service August 1st through August 10th, were timely denied after partial payment was made. As to claims for dates of service from August 11th through September 11th, defendant mailed verification requests and conducted an EUO before denying the claims for a material misrepresentation in the procurement of the policy. Plaintiff in its cross motion asks that this court determine that all the claims are overdue and unpaid, and thus, it is deserving of summary judgment.

Defendant submits the affidavits of Cathy Shandera, Lisa Edwards, Matthew Allen, and Paul Kosowski to demonstrate that it timely mailed delay letters, explanations of review, and NF-10s to plaintiff on the dates reflected in the chart above. Defendant claims that the affidavits are sufficient to establish the standard office practices and procedures of mailing these forms. Defendant argued that the contents of its delay letters clearly advised that it was investigating the loss and would request an EUO of plaintiff assignor, which consequently tolled the insurer’s obligation to deny or pay the claims (Soriano Aff. in Reply and Opp, ¶17).

In its opposition to defendant’s motion for summary judgment, plaintiff argues that defendant’s delay letters failed to toll the time to pay or deny plaintiff’s claims (Fagan Aff in Opp, ¶¶ 4, 18). Plaintiff claims the contents of the delay letters do not specifically inform it about what verification is needed other than stating an EUO is required (Fagan Aff in Opp, ¶ 18). Plaintiff also claims that defendant failed to provide copies of the EUO requests to plaintiff (Fagan Aff. in Opp, ¶19). As a result, it argues defendant’s NF-10s were untimely and defendant is precluded from the defense of material misrepresentation in the procurement of an insurance [*4]policy (Fagan Aff. in Opp, ¶¶ 17, 22).

Defendant’s affidavits and supporting exhibits establish the dates that the subject claims were received. Also, the delay letters to plaintiff were sufficient to toll the 30-day period (Galluzo Aff., Exh. E). Defendant’s additional verification letters were mailed within 15 days after it received plaintiff’s claims (see 11 NYCRR 65-3.5 [a],[b]; Hertz Vehicles, LLC v Best Touch PT, P.C., 162 AD3d 617, 618 [1st Dept 2018]). The delay letter was specific enough to communicate to plaintiff that an EUO was required. No further specificity is necessary. If plaintiff required any additional explanation of the delay letter, it is plaintiff’s responsibility to communicate about it (see Canarsie Chiropractic, P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 27 Misc 3d 1228(A) [Civ Ct, Kings Cty 2010]; Dilon Med. Supply Corp. v Travelers Ins. Co., 7 Misc 3d 927, 929 [Civ Ct, Kings Cty 2005]).

As to the claim that defendant failed to provide copies of the EUO request to plaintiff, this claim is controverted by the affidavit of Richard C. Aitken who submitted that his law office mailed plaintiff and the assignor an EUO scheduling letter (Galluzo Aff., p 14 [Aitken affidavit], and Exh. F). After the EUO took place on November 3, 2017, defendant denied those claims for material misrepresentation in procurement of the policy.

Defendant’s summary judgment motion established that plaintiff timely mailed the claims and that the claims were denied in a timely manner. As a result, plaintiff cannot establish that the claims are overdue.

Material Misrepresentation

As to the later three claims that were denied on the basis of material misrepresentation in the procurement of the policy, defendant refers the court to the affidavit of its underwriter, Dawn Thompson (Galluzo Aff., ¶¶4, 22; Soriano Aff. in Reply and Opp, ¶¶17, 38). Plaintiff correctly points out that no such affidavit was annexed to defendant’s submissions.

The insurer may raise the defense of fraudulent procurement of an insurance policy against health service providers seeking to recover assigned no-fault benefits, but this defense must be supported with sufficient proof that the misrepresentation was material (see Quality Medical Care, PC v Progressive Casualty Ins. Co., 56 Misc 3d 1214[A] [Civ Ct, Bronx Cty 2017]). A misrepresentation is material only if the insurer can demonstrate that it would not have issued the insurance policy if the correct information was known (see Interboro Ins. Co. v Fatmir, 89 AD3d 993 [2d Dept 2011]; Novick v Middlesex Mut. Assur. Co., 84 AD3d 1330 [2d Dept 2011]; Varshavskaya v Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 68 AD3d 855 [2d Dept 2009]). Materiality of a misrepresentation is ordinarily a question for trial (see Kiss Const. NY, Inc. v Rutgers Cas. Ins. Co., 61 AD3d 412, 413-14 [1st Dept 2009]). A court may determine the issue of materiality when evidence is presented that is clear and substantially uncontradicted (see id. citing Process Plants Corp. v Beneficial Natl. Life Ins. Co., 53 AD2d 214 [1st Dept 1976], affd 42 NY2d 928 [1977]).

After reviewing defendant’s 286-page motion, and 14-page reply and opposition to the cross motion, this court emailed the parties on February 22, 2021, for help locating the underwriter’s affidavit. Defendant’s counsel responded by email that the underwriter’s affidavit was not annexed to its papers and any references to the affidavit were “a typographical error.” Without this evidence, defendant cannot establish materiality as a matter of law and therefore, its motion for summary judgment fails.

Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED, defendant’s motion for summary judgment and plaintiff’s cross motion for same are granted to the extent that the issues preserved for trial are the bases for the timely denials. Plaintiff’s bills were timely submitted, as were defendant’s denials. An issue of fact exists as to whether plaintiff assignor’s misrepresentation about her residence and garaging of the vehicle was material in the procurement of the insurance policy.

This constitutes the decision and order of the court.

Dated: New York, New York
March 12, 2021
______________________
Ilana J. Marcus
Civil Court Judge

Decided on March 5, 2021

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

Law Offices of Buratti, Rothenberg & Burns (Argyria A.N. Kehagias of counsel), for appellant. Law Office of Damin J. Toell, P.C. (Damin J. Toell of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (John J. Kelley, J.), entered September 12, 2016. The order denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and granted plaintiff’s cross motion for summary judgment.

ORDERED that the order is reversed, with $30 costs, defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted and plaintiff’s cross motion for summary judgment is denied.

Plaintiff, RX Warehouse Pharmacy, Inc. (RX Warehouse), commenced this action on February 17, 2015 to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits for services rendered to plaintiff’s assignor, who had allegedly been injured in a motor vehicle accident on December 17, 2009. Defendant 21st Century Insurance Company (21st Century) moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the issue of whether 21st Century was required to provide no-fault coverage for the claim in dispute had been decided in a Supreme Court, Nassau County, declaratory judgment action, by order entered August 23, 2012 granting 21st Century’s motion for the entry of a default judgment. RX Warehouse opposed the motion in the Civil Court and cross-moved for summary judgment. 21st Century, in further support of its motion in the Civil Court, proffered an order of the Supreme Court, entered May 6, 2015, which had granted 21st Century’s motion for summary judgment, and a judgment entered February 4, 2016 pursuant to the May 6, 2015 order, declaring, insofar as is relevant, that the insurance policy at issue was null and void with respect to the December 17, 2009 collision, and that 21st Century has no duty to defend or indemnify any person under the policy in any action or proceeding brought for damages as a result of the December 17, 2009 collision. RX Warehouse’s attorney argued in an affirmation that the judgment is not applicable to this provider, and that, in any [*2]event, the judgment had not been served on this provider.

By order entered September 12, 2016, the Civil Court denied 21st Century’s motion and granted RX Warehouse’s cross motion, finding that the Supreme Court’s August 23, 2012 order is not a conclusive final determination, as it did not make any declarations determining a lack of coverage. The Civil Court further found that the Supreme Court’s February 4, 2016 judgment had not been served on RX Warehouse’s counsel, and even if the Civil Court considered the judgment, the “judgment does not declare any rights or obligations that pertain to the plaintiff or plaintiff’s claims in this action.”

A defendant’s default admits all the factual allegations of the complaint and all reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom (see Lamm v Stevenson, 276 AD2d 531 [2000]). Here, by defaulting in the declaratory judgment action, RX Warehouse admitted all the facts alleged in the complaint in that action regarding the staged nature of the accident in question. An order, such as the August 23, 2012 order granting 21st Century’s motion for the entry of a default judgment in the declaratory judgment action, “provides such a ‘judgment’ as will bar relitigation under the doctrines of res judicata or collateral estoppel so long as the requisites of identity of issue and opportunity to contest are present” (Vavolizza v Krieger, 33 NY2d 351, 356 [1974]; see also Slater v American Min. Spirits Co., 33 NY2d 443 [1974]).

Consequently, in light of the August 23, 2012 order, 21st Century’s motion in the Civil Court for summary judgment dismissing the complaint should have been granted under the doctrine of res judicata (see EBM Med. Health Care, P.C. v Republic W. Ins., 38 Misc 3d 1 [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2012]), as any judgment in favor of RX Warehouse in the present action would destroy or impair rights or interests established by the order in the declaratory judgment action (see Schuylkill Fuel Corp. v Nieberg Realty Corp., 250 NY 304 [1929]; Healing Art Acupuncture, P.C. v 21st Century Ins. Co., 59 Misc 3d 139[A], 2018 NY Slip Op 50583[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2014]; Flushing Traditional Acupuncture, P.C. v Kemper Ins. Co., 42 Misc 3d 133[A], 2014 NY Slip Op 50052[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2014]).

Accordingly, the order is reversed, defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted and plaintiff’s cross motion for summary judgment is denied.

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

[*1]

Peter C. Merani, P.C., New York, NY, for appellant.

Gary Tsirelman, P.C., Brooklyn, NY (Stefan Belinfanti and David M. Gottlieb of counsel), for respondent.

Rivkin Radler LLP, Uniondale, NY (Evan H. Krinick, Barry I. Levy, and Henry M. Mascia of counsel), for amici curiae New York Insurance Association, Inc., and another.

In an action to recover no-fault benefits, the defendant appeals, by permission, from an order of the Appellate Term of the Supreme Court for the Second, Eleventh, and Thirteenth Judicial Districts dated March 29, 2017. The order affirmed an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Terrence C. O’Connor, J.), entered April 1, 2015, denying the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order dated March 29, 2017, is affirmed, with costs.

In June 2011, the plaintiff commenced the instant action against the defendant in the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County, seeking to recover the sum of $4,748.69 for treatment provided to its assignor in April 2011, following a motor vehicle accident that occurred on October 20, 2010. The plaintiff alleged, among other things, that a no-fault claim and verification were sent to the defendant on April 19, 2011, and that the defendant failed to properly deny the claim or request additional verification in compliance with no-fault regulations.

In May 2014, the defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, arguing that the benefits under the no-fault policy had been exhausted. The Civil Court denied the defendant’s motion, and the Appellate Term of the Supreme Court for the Second, Eleventh, and Thirteenth Judicial Districts affirmed. The defendant appeals, and we affirm, albeit on different grounds than those relied upon by the Civil Court or the Appellate Term.

“Under the no-fault system, payments of benefits ‘shall be made as the loss is incurred’ ” (Matter of Medical Socy. of State of N.Y. v Serio, 100 NY2d 854, 860 [2003], quoting Insurance Law § 5106 [a]). Under this regulatory scheme, “an insurer shall pay benefits directly to the ‘applicant,’ or, upon assignment by the applicant, ‘shall pay benefits directly to providers of health care services’ ” (East Acupuncture, P.C. v Allstate Ins. Co., 61 AD3d 202, 207 [2009], quoting 11 NYCRR 65-3.11 [a]). In addition, “an insurer is required to either pay or deny a claim for no-fault automobile [*2]insurance benefits within 30 days from the date an applicant supplies proof of claim” (Presbyterian Hosp. in City of N.Y. v Maryland Cas. Co., 90 NY2d 274, 278 [1997]; see Insurance Law § 5106 [a]). However, “[a]n insurer is not required to pay a claim where the policy limits have been exhausted” (see Hospital for Joint Diseases v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 8 AD3d 533, 534 [2004]) since, where payments made by an insurer meet or exceed the policy limits, “its duties under the contract of insurance cease” (Presbyterian Hosp. in City of N.Y. v Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 216 AD2d 448, 448 [1995]; see 11 NYCRR 65-3.15).

“[A]n insurer must pay or deny only a verified claim—that is, a claim that has been verified to the extent compliance with section 65-3.5 dictates in the particular case—within 30 calendar days of receipt; and, conversely, is not obligated to pay any claim until it has been so verified” (Nyack Hosp. v General Motors Acceptance Corp., 8 NY3d 294, 299 [2007]). Once claims have been verified they are subject to the priority of payment regulation, 11 NYCRR 65-3.15 (see Nyack Hosp. v General Motors Acceptance Corp., 8 NY3d at 300).

While the defendant submitted records indicating that the subject no-fault policy had been exhausted in 2013, the defendant’s submissions failed to establish its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. Although the defendant submitted an affidavit from one of its employees that set forth the defendant’s ordinary business practice of receiving, recording, and denying no-fault claims from medical providers, the affidavit is bereft of any specific information regarding this claim. The defendant failed to submit the no-fault application, verification, any request for verification, or any denial associated with the plaintiff’s claim for payment. “While a witness may read into the record from the contents of a document which has been admitted into evidence, a witness’s description of a document not admitted into evidence is hearsay” (Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Sesey, 183 AD3d 780, 783 [2020] [citation and internal quotation marks omitted]). Because “a review of records maintained in the normal course of business does not vest an affiant with personal knowledge” (JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v Grennan, 175 AD3d 1513, 1517 [2019]), the employee’s assertions as to the contents of the no-fault file are inadmissible hearsay (see Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Sesey, 183 AD3d at 783; U.S. Bank N.A. v 22 S. Madison, LLC, 170 AD3d 772, 774 [2019]). Accordingly, there are issues of fact remaining as to when the claim was denied, and the basis and efficacy of the denial (see Paulin v Needham, 28 AD3d 531 [2006]).

The parties’ remaining contentions, including those raised by the amici curiae, need not be reached in light of our determination. Chambers, J.P., LaSalle, Barros and Christopher, JJ., concur.

Decided on February 19, 2021

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

Decided on February 19, 2021

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