Decided on August 28, 2020

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

Law Office of Jason Tenenbaum, P.C. (Jason Tenenbaum of counsel), for appellant. Law Offices of Ilona Finkelshteyn, P.C., for respondent (no brief filed).

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Lorna J. McAllister, J.), entered April 17, 2018. 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 moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that plaintiff’s assignor had failed to appear for duly scheduled independent medical examinations. By order entered April 17, 2018, the Civil Court, insofar as is relevant to this appeal, denied the motion, but found, in effect pursuant to CPLR 3212 (g), that defendant had established timely mailing of the denial of claim forms.

For the reasons stated in Colin, as Assignee of Tyrell Sloan v Global Liberty Ins. Co. of NY (___ Misc 3d ___, 2020 NY Slip Op ______ [appeal No. 2018-2315 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., ELLIOT and TOUSSAINT, JJ., concur.

Decided on August 28, 2020

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

The Rybak Firm, PLLC (Damin J. Toell of counsel), for appellant. Harris J. Zakarin, P.C. (Harris J. Zakarin of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Richard J. Montelione, J.), entered January 23, 2018. The order granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and denied plaintiff’s cross motion for summary judgment.

ORDERED that the order is modified by providing that defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is denied; as so modified, the order is affirmed, without costs.

In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, arguing that plaintiff had failed to appear for examinations under oath (EUOs) and that the action was premature because plaintiff had failed to provide requested verification. Plaintiff cross-moved for summary judgment. By order entered January 23, 2018, the Civil Court granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the action was premature due to plaintiff’s failure to provide requested verification and denied plaintiff’s cross motion.

Defendant demonstrated, prima facie, that it had timely mailed initial and follow-up requests for verification (see St. Vincent’s Hosp. of Richmond v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 50 AD3d 1123 [2008]) and had not received the requested verification. However, as plaintiff argues, the affidavit submitted by plaintiff in opposition to defendant’s motion was sufficient to give rise to a presumption that the requested verification had been mailed to, and received by, defendant (see id.). In light of the foregoing, there is a triable issue of fact as to whether the action is premature (see Compas Med., P.C. v Praetorian Ins. Co., 49 Misc 3d 152[A], 2015 NY Slip Op 51776[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2015]). Plaintiff’s remaining contention lacks merit (see Frankel v Stavsky, 40 AD3d 918 [2007]).

Accordingly, the order is modified by providing that defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is denied.

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

Law Offices of Jonathan B. Seplowe, Esq. (Alan M. Elis of counsel), for appellant. Goldberg, Miller & Rubin, P.C. (Timothy R. Bishop of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal from an order of the District Court of Nassau County, First District (Ignatius L. Muscarella, J.), dated April 11, 2019. The order denied a petition to vacate a master arbitrator’s award, dated September 12, 2018, in a CPLR 7511 proceeding. The appeal was taken to the Appellate Term, Second, Eleventh and Thirteenth Judicial Districts and was transferred to this court by a decision and order on motion of that court dated January 23, 2020 (2020 NY Slip Op 61944[U]).

ORDERED that the order is modified by adding thereto a provision confirming the master arbitrator’s award; as so modified, the order is affirmed, without costs.

Petitioner commenced this proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 to vacate a master arbitrator’s award dated September 12, 2018, which upheld the award of an arbitrator, rendered pursuant to Insurance Law § 5106 (b), denying petitioner’s claim to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits. The District Court denied the petition.

We initially note that, contrary to respondent’s contention, it is well settled that arbitration under the no-fault law is compulsory (see Matter of Bay Needle Care Acupuncture, P.C. v Country Wide Ins. Co., 176 AD3d 695 [2019]; Barry Rubin, M.D., P.C. v Met Life Auto & Home Ins. Co., 26 Misc 3d 138[A], 2010 NY Slip Op 50223[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2010]). “A court reviewing the award of a master arbitrator is limited to the grounds set forth in CPLR article 75, which include, in this compulsory arbitration, the question of whether the determination had evidentiary support, was rational, or had a plausible basis (see Matter of Petrofsky [Allstate Ins. Co.], 54 NY2d 207, 212 [1981])” (Matter of Acuhealth Acupuncture, P.C. v Country-Wide Ins. Co., 176 AD3d 800, 802 [2019]). Applying this standard, we find a rational basis for the determination of the master arbitrator upholding the arbitrator’s award (see Matter of Motor Veh. Acc. Indem. Corp. v Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 89 NY2d 214 [1996]; Matter of Petrofsky [Allstate Ins. Co.], 54 NY2d 207). Consequently, the Civil Court properly denied the petition to vacate the master arbitrator’s award.However, upon [*2]denying the petition, the court was required, pursuant to CPLR 7511 (e), to confirm the award (see Matter of Exclusive Med. & Diagnostic v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 306 AD2d 476 [2003]).

Accordingly, the order is modified by adding thereto a provision confirming the master arbitrator’s award.

We note that a proceeding to vacate or to confirm an arbitrator’s award is a special proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 4 and should, therefore, terminate in a judgment rather than an order (see CPLR 411).

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

651486/2019

Larkin Farrell LLC, New York, NY (William Larkin of counsel), for plaintiff.

Law Offices of Gary Tsirelman P.C., Brooklyn, NY (Jung Pryjma of counsel), for defendant Wellmart RX Inc.

This motion concerns the potential obligation to pay no-fault insurance benefits of plaintiff American Transit Insurance Company. Defendant Jeremy Martinez was in a vehicle that was involved in a collision. The vehicle was covered by a no-fault insurance policy issued by American Transit. Martinez assigned the right to collect no-fault benefits under that policy to various treating medical providers, including defendant Wellmart RX Inc. Wellmart applied for no-fault benefits, which American Transit denied.

American Transit brought this action for a declaratory judgment that it is not required to pay no-fault benefits to Martinez or to the other defendants (all medical-provider assignees of Martinez). Wellmart was the only defendant that appeared in the action. American Transit moved for default judgment under CPLR 3215 against Martinez and several of the other non-appearing defendants.

This court granted the default-judgment motion without opposition. The court issued a declaration that Martinez and the non-appearing providers “are not entitled to no-fault benefits as a result of a motor vehicle accident involving Jeremy Martinez . . . due to Jeremy Martinez’s failure to appear for duly scheduled independent medical examinations.” (NYSCEF No. 34 at 1-2 [capitalization omitted].) The court also severed and continued the action as against the remaining defendants, including Wellmart. (See id. at 2.)

American Transit now moves for summary judgment under CPLR 3212 against Wellmart. The motion is denied.

DISCUSSION

American Transit argues that because Wellmart is Martinez’s assignee, Wellmart’s claim for benefits is derivative of Martinez’s rights under the no-fault policy—and thus that the default judgment against Martinez ousted Wellmart’s right to claim benefits. This court disagrees. Decades ago, the Appellate Division held that when an assignment of no-fault benefits is made prior to the institution of legal action, a decision on default against the assignor does not bar the assignee from asserting a claim to no-fault benefits. (See Lakeside Hosp. v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 70 AD2d 658, 658 [2d Dept 1979], citing Gramatan Home Inv. Corp. v Lopez, 46 NY2d 481, 486-487 [1979].)

To be sure, in Lakeland Hospital the court noted that the assignee was not a party to the prior arbitration. Here, as American Transit points out, Wellmart is a party defendant. But although Wellmart is a party to this action, it was not a party to the prior motion. To the contrary, American Transit’s motion papers expressly stated that “[n]o relief is sought at this time with respect to” Wellmart. (NYSCEF No. 20 at 1.) This court’s prior order in this action, although it “awarded a default judgment to [American Transit] against [Wellmart’s] assignor . . . did not declare the rights of [American Transit] as against [Wellmart].” The default-judgment order thus does not have preclusive effect on the current summary-judgment motion. (Jamaica Wellness Medical, P.C. v Mercury Casualty Co., 2018 NY Slip Op 51128[U], at *2 (App Term 2d Dept 2018]; accord Ultimate Health Prods., Inc. v Ameriprise Auto & Home, 57 Misc 3d 9, 11 [App Term 2d Dept 2017].)

American Transit argues that the grant of default judgment against Martinez had the effect of declaring that the no-fault policy was void, leaving Martinez without any claim to benefits that he could [*2]have assigned to Wellmart in the first place. But the judgment that American Transit requested from this court, and which this court entered, did not reach so far. As noted above, the default judgment merely declared that Wellmart (and the other non-appearing defendants) are not entitled to benefits, without going on to declare that the no-fault policy itself was void. (See NYSCEF No. 34 at 1-2.) In any event, in Lakeland Hospital, the arbitration decision entered on the assignor’s default sustained the insurer’s argument that the assignor had no claim to benefits as a result of her no-fault policy having been canceled outright prior to the occurrence—and thus prior to any assignment—for nonpayment of premiums. (See 70 AD2d at 658.) The Second Department nonetheless held that this prior arbitration decision did not preclude the assignee from claiming a right to benefits. (See id.)

American Transit thus is not entitled to summary judgment against Wellmart based merely on this court’s prior default-judgment order against Martinez.

Whether American Transit is Entitled to Summary Judgment on the Merits

Alternatively, American Transit argues that Martinez’s failure to appear for scheduled independent medical examinations (IMEs) defeats coverage under the no-fault policy, and thus forecloses Wellmart’s claim to benefits. This court is not persuaded.

A no-fault insurer seeking a declaration of no coverage due to asserted violations of the terms of the policy must first demonstrate that it complied with each of the procedural and timeliness requirements of 11 NYCRR § 65-3.5, governing the handling of no-fault claims. (See American Transit Ins. Co. v Longevity Med. Supply, Inc., 131 AD3d 841, 841 [1st Dept 2015].) One such requirement is that if the insurer requests additional verification of a no-fault claim in the form of an IME, the IME must be scheduled to occur “within 30 calendar days from the date of receipt of the prescribed verification forms.” (11 NYCRR § 65-3.5 [d].) American Transit has not shown that it satisfied this 30-calendar-day timeframe. The documents submitted by American Transit show at most that the first IME was scheduled to be held 26 days after the date of the scheduling notice. (See NYSCEF No. 41 at 17.) Those documents do not reflect when American Transit received the prescribed verification form, as required to determine whether the IME’s scheduled date satisfied the 30-day requirement.^[FN1] Given this failure of proof, American Transit has not satisfied its initial prima facie burden at summary judgment. (See Longevity Medical Supply, 131 AD3d at 841.)^[FN2]

American Transit argues that these deadlines apply only to “medical examinations that are necessary to determine if [a] particular claim should be paid,” as opposed to “being scheduled for a more broad reason, ie to determine, generally, if the claimant needs future treatment.” (NYSCEF No. 47 at 12-13.) Even assuming for the sake of argument that this interpretive argument is correct, it does not avail American Transit here.

The record evidence on this motion reflects only that American Transit received Martinez’s NF-2 benefits application on October 2, 2017 (see NYSCEF No. 41 at 11-14 [mailroom stamp and date/time footer]), and prepared an IME scheduling notice 10 days later, on October 12, 2017 (see id. at 17). That short time period itself suggests a connection between Martinez’s initial benefits claim and the scheduling of an IME. More fundamentally, there is no record evidence indicating any other purpose for holding the [*3]IME that could even potentially take that IME out of the scheduling framework of 11 NYCRR § 65-3.5 (b) through (d).

Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons it is hereby

ORDERED that American Transit’s motion under CPLR 3212 for summary judgment in its favor as to defendant Wellmart is denied.

8/21/2020

Footnotes

Footnote 1:American Transit has provided the NF-2 claim form provided by Martinez, which contains markings indicating that American Transit received the form on October 2, 2017, 36 days before the IME date. (See NYSCEF No. 41 at 11-14 [mailroom stamp and date/time footer].) But it has not provided the NF-3 verification form.

Footnote 2:In arguing that it could deny no-fault coverage due to Martinez’s failure to appear for IMEs even if those IMEs were not timely scheduled (see NYSCEF No. 54 at 5-10), American Transit does not mention the First Department’s decision in Longevity Medical Supply.

650105/2019

Larkin Farrell LLC, New York, NY (William Larkin of counsel), for plaintiff.

Law Offices of Gary Tsirelman P.C., Brooklyn, NY (Jung Pryjma of counsel), for defendant City Wide Health Facility Inc.

The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 002) 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55 were read on this motion to/for SUMMARY JUDGMENT.

This motion concerns the potential obligation to pay no-fault insurance benefits of plaintiff American Transit Insurance Company. Defendant Marsillant Wildex was in a vehicle that was involved in a collision. The vehicle was covered by a no-fault insurance policy issued by American Transit. Wildex assigned the right to collect no-fault benefits under that policy to various treating medical providers, including defendant City Wide Health Facility Inc. City Wide applied for no-fault benefits, which American Transit denied.

American Transit brought this action for a declaratory judgment that it is not required to pay no-fault benefits to Wildex or to the other defendants (all medical-provider assignees of Wildex). City Wide was the only defendant that appeared in the action. American Transit moved for default judgment under CPLR 3215 against Wildex and the other non-appearing defendants.

This court granted the default-judgment motion without opposition. The court issued a declaration that Wildex and the non-appearing providers “are not entitled to no-fault benefits as a result of a motor vehicle accident involving Marsillant Wildex . . . due to Marsillant Wildex’s failure to appear for duly scheduled independent medical examinations.” (NYSCEF No. 39 at 2-3 [capitalization omitted].) The court also severed and continued the action as against City Wide. (See id. at 3.)

American Transit now moves for summary judgment under CPLR 3212 against City Wide. The motion is denied.

DISCUSSION

American Transit argues that because City Wide is Wildex’s assignee, City Wide’s claim for benefits is derivative of Wildex’s rights under the no-fault policy—and thus that the default judgment against Wildex ousted City Wide’s right to claim benefits. This court disagrees. Decades ago, the Appellate Division held that when an assignment of no-fault benefits is made prior to the institution of legal action, a decision on default against the assignor does not bar the [*2]assignee from asserting a claim to no-fault benefits. (See Lakeside Hosp. v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 70 AD2d 658, 658 [2d Dept 1979], citing Gramatan Home Inv. Corp. v Lopez, 46 NY2d 481, 486-487 [1979].)

To be sure, in Lakeland Hospital the court noted that the assignee was not a party to the prior arbitration. Here, as American Transit points out, City Wide is a party defendant. But although City Wide is a party to this action, it was not a party to the prior motion. To the contrary, American Transit’s motion papers expressly stated that “[n]o relief is sought at this time with respect to” City Wide. (NYSCEF No. 27 at 2.) This court’s prior order in this action, although it “awarded a default judgment to [American Transit] against [City Wide’s] assignor . . . did not declare the rights of [American Transit] as against [City Wide].” The default-judgment order thus does not have preclusive effect on the current summary-judgment motion. (Jamaica Wellness Medical, P.C. v Mercury Casualty Co., 2018 NY Slip Op 51128[U], at *2 (App Term 2d Dept 2018]; accord Ultimate Health Prods., Inc. v Ameriprise Auto & Home, 57 Misc 3d 9, 11 [App Term 2d Dept 2017].)

American Transit argues that the grant of default judgment against Wildex had the effect of declaring that the no-fault policy was void, leaving Wildex without any claim to benefits that he could have assigned to City Wide in the first place. But the judgment that American Transit requested from this court, and which this court entered, did not reach so far. As noted above, the default judgment merely declared that Wildex (and the other non-appearing defendants) are not entitled to benefits, without going on to declare that the no-fault policy itself was void. (See NYSCEF No. 39 at 2-3.) In any event, in Lakeland Hospital, the arbitration decision entered on the assignor’s default sustained the insurer’s argument that the assignor had no claim to benefits as a result of her no-fault policy having been canceled outright prior to the occurrence—and thus prior to any assignment—for nonpayment of premiums. (See 70 AD2d at 658.) The Second Department nonetheless held that this prior arbitration decision did not preclude the assignee from claiming a right to benefits. (See id.)

American Transit thus is not entitled to summary judgment against City Wide based merely on this court’s prior default-judgment order against Wildex.

Whether American Transit is Entitled to Summary Judgment on the Merits

Alternatively, American Transit argues that Wildex’s failure to appear for scheduled independent medical examinations (IMEs) defeats coverage under the no-fault policy, and thus forecloses City Wide’s claim to benefits. This court is not persuaded.

A no-fault insurer seeking a declaration of no coverage due to asserted violations of the terms of the policy must first demonstrate that it complied with each of the procedural and timeliness requirements of 11 NYCRR § 65-3.5, governing the handling of no-fault claims. (See American Transit Ins. Co. v Longevity Med. Supply, Inc., 131 AD3d 841, 841 [1st Dept 2015].) One such requirement is that if the insurer requests additional verification of a no-fault claim in the form of an IME, the IME must be scheduled to occur “within 30 calendar days from the date [*3]of receipt of the prescribed verification forms.” (11 NYCRR § 65-3.5 [d].) American Transit has not shown that it satisfied this 30-calendar-day timeframe. To the contrary, the documents submitted by American Transit indicate that the first IME was scheduled to be held 43 days after the date of the scheduling notice itself. (See NYSCEF No. 48 at 20.) Given this failure of proof, American Transit has not satisfied its initial prima facie burden at summary judgment. (See Longevity Medical Supply, 131 AD3d at 841.)^[FN1]

American Transit argues that these deadlines apply only to “medical examinations that are necessary to determine if [a] particular claim should be paid,” as opposed to “being scheduled for a more broad reason, ie to determine, generally, if the claimant needs future treatment.” (NYSCEF No. 54 at 12-13.) Even assuming for the sake of argument that this interpretive argument is correct, it does not avail American Transit here.

The record evidence on this motion reflects only that American Transit received Wildex’s NF-2 benefits application on July 31, 2017 (see NYSCEF No. 48 at 11-14 [mailroom stamp and date/time footer]), and prepared an IME scheduling notice 16 days later, on August 16, 2017 (see id. at 20). That short time period itself suggests a connection between Wildex’s initial benefits claim and the scheduling of an IME. More fundamentally, there is no record evidence indicating any other purpose for holding the IME that could even potentially take that IME out of the scheduling framework of 11 NYCRR § 65-3.5 (b) through (d).

Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons it is hereby

ORDERED that American Transit’s motion under CPLR 3212 for summary judgment in its favor as to defendant City Wide is denied.

Defendants.

8/21/2020

Footnotes

Footnote 1:In arguing that it could deny no-fault coverage due to Wildex’s failure to appear for IMEs even if those IMEs were not timely scheduled (see NYSCEF No. 54 at 5-10), American Transit does not mention the First Department’s decision in Longevity Medical Supply.

The Rybak Firm, PLLC (Damin J. Toell and Karina Barska of counsel), for appellant. Gallo, Vitucci & Klar, LLP (Richard E. Weber and Marissa Dunderdale of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Odessa Kennedy, J.), entered March 18, 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 affirmed, without costs.

In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, plaintiff moved for summary judgment and defendant cross-moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the automobile insurance policy in question had been issued in Florida and that, pursuant to Florida law, there was a lack of coverage due to the valid rescission of the automobile insurance policy and the refund of the insured’s premiums. Plaintiff appeals from an order of the Civil Court entered March 18, 2019 which denied plaintiff’s motion and granted defendant’s cross motion.

It is undisputed that the vehicle in question was insured by defendant under a Florida automobile insurance policy. According to an affidavit submitted by an employee of defendant’s managing general agent, an investigation conducted after the accident revealed that, at the time the policyholder had applied for automobile insurance, he did not reside at the Florida address listed on his insurance application, and that the insured vehicle was not being garaged in Florida [*2]for the period stated on the application. Subsequent to defendant’s investigation, it initiated a declaratory judgment action in Florida Circuit Court in Broward County in which a final judgment was entered declaring the subject policy null and void based on the applicant’s misrepresentations in procuring the policy. Defendant then rescinded the policy ab initio, pursuant to Florida Statutes Annotated, title 37, § 627.409, which permits the retroactive rescission of an insurance policy if there has been a material misrepresentation in the application for insurance.

It is undisputed by the parties that Florida law applies. Inasmuch as defendant’s cross motion papers demonstrated that a rescission notice was sent to the insured, and that defendant had returned, or tendered, all premiums paid to the insured within a reasonable period of time after defendant’s discovery of the grounds for rescinding the policy, defendant established, prima facie, that it had voided the policy ab initio pursuant to Florida law (see W.H.O. Acupuncture, P.C. v Infinity Prop. & Cas. Co., 36 Misc 3d 4, 6-7 [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2012], citing Leonardo v State Farm Fire and Cas. Co., 675 So 2d 176, 179 [Fla Dist Ct App, 4th Dist 1996]).

Plaintiff’s remaining arguments are not properly before this court as they are being raised for the first time on appeal, and we decline to consider them (see Joe v Upper Room Ministries, Inc., 88 AD3d 963 [2011]; Mind & Body Acupuncture, P.C. v Elrac, Inc., 48 Misc 3d 139[A], 2015 NY Slip Op 51219[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2015]).

Accordingly, the order is affirmed.

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

Decided on August 14, 2020

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

Law Office of David O’Connor, LLC (David O’Connor of counsel), for appellant. Rivkin Radler, LLP (Stuart M. Bodoff of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Phillip Hom, J.), entered August 8, 2018. The order granted the branch of defendant’s motion seeking to dismiss the complaint on the ground of laches.

ORDERED that the order is reversed, without costs, the branch of defendant’s motion seeking to dismiss the complaint on the ground of laches is denied, and the matter is remitted to the Civil Court for a determination of the remaining branches of defendant’s motion.

Insofar as is relevant to the appeal in this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, defendant moved to, among other things, dismiss the complaint on the ground of laches, based on plaintiff’s delay in prosecuting the action. The Civil Court granted this branch of defendant’s motion and found that the remaining branches of the motion were moot.

For the reasons stated in Rockaway Med. & Diagnostic, P.C. v State Farm Mut. Ins. Co. (66 Misc 3d 147[A], 2020 NY Slip Op 50238[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2020]), the order is reversed, the branch of defendant’s motion seeking to dismiss the complaint on the ground of laches is denied, and the matter is remitted to the Civil Court for a determination of the remaining branches of defendant’s motion.

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