• 347-746-6001
  • contact@beynensonlaw.com
Beynenson Law
Beynenson Law
  • Services
    • Search Case Law & Regulations
    • New Decisions
    • Decisions by Court
    • Legal Questions
    • No-Fault Regulations
    • Claim Process & Deadlines
    • Ask No-Fault AI
    • Arbitrator Scorecard
    • Award Volume
    • Arbitrator / Carrier Data
    • Provider / Carrier Data
    • Provider / Attorney Data
    • Arbitration Pro Extension
  • About Us
  • Contact
  • East Hampton, New York

  • 347-746-6001
  • contact@beynensonlaw.com
  • Services
    • Search Case Law & Regulations
    • New Decisions
    • Decisions by Court
    • Legal Questions
    • No-Fault Regulations
    • Claim Process & Deadlines
    • Ask No-Fault AI
    • Arbitrator Scorecard
    • Award Volume
    • Arbitrator / Carrier Data
    • Provider / Carrier Data
    • Provider / Attorney Data
    • Arbitration Pro Extension
  • About Us
  • Contact
March 8, 2022

American Tr. Ins. Co. v Rivera (2022 NY Slip Op 50180(U))

https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/american-tr-ins-co-v-rivera-2022-ny-slip-op-50180u/

Court
Supreme Court, New York County
Judge
Gerald Lebovits, J.
Decided
March 8, 2022
Citation
2022 NY Slip Op 50180(U)
Posture
Summary judgment
Outcome
Provider prevailed
Issues
IME no-show Timeliness and preclusion Discovery and procedure
Legal questions
No-show defense: insurer's proof (see the maps)
Cite as
American Tr. Ins. Co. v Rivera, 2022 NY Slip Op 50180(U) (Sup Ct, New York County 2022)

Posture, outcome, issues and treatment by other decisions are Beynenson Law’s classification. Treatment labels are assigned by a language model reading the citing decision; negative and appeal-history labels are checked by a second reader.

Summary

Editorial summary by Beynenson Law, not part of the court’s decision.

The insurer failed to prove timely IME requests and follow-up or the assignor's nonappearance with competent evidence. The Supreme Court, New York County, denied default judgment under CPLR 3215 and summary judgment under CPLR 3212. Missing NF-3 forms prevented proof of compliance with 11 NYCRR 65-3.5 (b) and (d); the follow-up letter came 21 days after nonappearance, exceeding 11 NYCRR 65-3.6 (b)'s 10-day limit. The physician's nonappearance affidavit was unsigned. These defects exceeded those excusable under 11 NYCRR 65-3.5 (p). Outstanding discovery also rendered summary judgment premature under CPLR 3212 (f). The court required discovery responses within 30 days of entry and a renewed motion within 60 days of entry, failing which the action would be administratively dismissed.

Reported in New York Official Reports at American Tr. Ins. Co. v Rivera (2022 NY Slip Op 50180(U))



American Transit Insurance Company, Plaintiff,

against

Erika Rivera, ACCU REFERENCE MEDICAL LAB LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, D.H. CHIROPRACTIC, P.C., FAST CARE MEDICAL DIAGNOSTICS, PLLC, GLOBAL SURGERY CENTER LLC, HUDSON TRANSPORTATION LLC, LIBERTY RHEA RANADA EBARLE, PT, P.C., MOUNT SINAI ST. LUKE’S HOSPITAL, MOUNT SINAI ST. LUKES ADULT ED, PRECISION PAIN MANAGEMENT P.C., REBOUND ACUPUNCTURE P.C., SAFE ANESTHESIA AND PAIN, LLC, SHIBRAH M. JAMIL, MD, P.C., SIXTH BOROUGH MEDICAL, UNIVERSITY SPINE CENTER, P.C., and VOK MEDICAL INC, Defendants.

Index No. 150343/2021

The Law Office of Daniel J. Tucker, Brooklyn, NY (Fotini Lambrianidis of counsel), for plaintiff.

The Tadchiev Law Firm, P.C., Fresh Meadows, NY (Simon B. Landsberg of counsel), for defendants Global Surgery Center LLC and Safe Anesthesia and Pain LLC.

Gerald Lebovits, J.

This motion concerns the potential obligation to pay no-fault insurance benefits of plaintiff American Transit Insurance Company. Defendant Erika Rivera was in a vehicle that was involved in a collision. The vehicle was covered by a no-fault insurance policy issued by American Transit. Rivera assigned the right to collect no-fault benefits under that policy to various treating medical providers. American Transit denied those providers’ applications for no-fault benefits.

American Transit brought this action for a declaratory judgment that it is not required to pay no-fault benefits to Rivera or to Rivera’s medical-provider assignees. Only Rivera and defendants Global Surgery Center LLC and Safe Anesthesia and Pain LLC answered.[FN1]

American Transit now moves for default judgment under CPLR 3215 against the various defaulting defendants, and moves for summary judgment under CPLR 3212 against Global Surgery Center LLC and Safe Anesthesia and Pain LLC. The motion is denied.

DISCUSSION

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].)

Under these regulations, a no-fault insurer’s request for additional verification in the form of an independent medical examination (IME) must be made within 15 business days of receiving claimant’s verification forms. (See 11 NYCRR § 65-3.5 [b].) The IME must be held within 30 calendar days from receipt of the verification forms. (See id. § 65-3.5 [d].) If the claimant does not appear for the IME, the insurer must send a letter rescheduling the IME within 10 calendar days of the nonappearance. (See 11 NYCRR 65-3.6 [b].)

American Transit has not established that it satisfied these timeframes, as required to establish the facts constituting its claim under CPLR 3215 and to establish prima facie its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law under CPLR 3212.

American Transit has submitted on this motion Rivera’s NF-2 benefits application, dated October 29, 2019. (See NYSCEF No. 19.) American Transit has not, however, submitted any NF-3 verification forms. American Transit thus cannot establish that the first IME here was timely requested or timely scheduled under § 65-3.5. Indeed, the record as it stands casts considerable doubt on the timeliness of the IME: American Transit’s first request, sent on February 13, 2020, scheduled an IME for March 3, 2020—fully 126 calendar days after the date of the NF-2 application. (See NYSCEF No. 17 at ¶ 3; NYSCEF No. 20 at 7.)

American Transit’s papers also reflect that it did not timely reschedule the IME. The IME first scheduled in the February 13, 2020, request letter was rescheduled several times due to the COVID-19 pandemic, and ultimately postponed to June 23, 2020. Rivera did not appear for the June 23 IME date. American Transit did not, however, then reschedule the IME again within 10 days. Its papers reflect instead that it sent a follow-up letter on July 14, 2020—21 calendar days after Rivera failed to appear, not 10. (See NYSCEF No. 17 at ¶ 8; NYSCEF No. 20 at 2.)

American Transit’s motion papers suffer from additional defects. American Transit’s proof that Rivera did not appear for the June 23, 2020, IME date, or the rescheduled August 4, 2020, IME date, is a boilerplate affidavit from its IME physician.[FN2] But that affidavit is not signed. (See NYSCEF No. 17 at 4.) Moreover, the notary’s stamp states that the notary is “Qualified in Suffolk County” while the top of the affidavit reflects that it was prepared in the “County of Nassa [sic].”[FN3] (Id.) This document is not competent evidence of Rivera’s asserted failure to appear for IMEs.

Minor delays in requesting additional verification (or following-up on verification requests) may constitute “a technical defect excusable under 11 NYCRR 65-3.5 (p).” (Kemper Independence Ins. Co. v. Cornerstone Chiropractic, P.C., 185 AD3d 468, 469 [1st Dept 2020] [internal quotation marks omitted]). But American Transit’s outright failure to establish when it first requested an IME relative to when it received provider bills or other verification forms, coupled with the absence of a competent affidavit to establish Rivera’s failure to appear at the rescheduled IMEs, far exceeds the “nonsubstantive technical or immaterial defect or omission” that § 65-3.5 (p) excuses. (See American Transit Ins. Co. v Foster, 2019 NY Slip Op 30746[U], at *4 [Sup Ct, NY County Mar. 26, 2019] [holding substantial and repeated delays in seeking verification not excusable under § 65-3.5 [p]].)

Further, Global Surgery and Safe Anesthesia represent in opposition to summary judgment that American Transit has not yet responded to their discovery requests, rendering the summary judgment motion against them premature under CPLR 3212 (f). (See NYSCEF No. 28 at 14-16.) American Transit has not controverted that representation.

American Transit has thus failed to establish either that it is entitled to default judgment against the defaulting defendants under CPLR 3215, or that it is entitled to summary judgment against the answering defendants under CPLR 3212. It is somewhat doubtful that plaintiff can make out the necessary showings. But this court elects to afford American Transit one more opportunity to do so, rather than dismiss the action outright at this time.

Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons it is

ORDERED that the branch of American Transit’s motion under CPLR 3215 seeking default judgment against the defaulting defendants is denied; and it is further

ORDERED that the branch of American Transit’s motion under CPLR 3212 seeking summary judgment against Global Surgery and Safe Anesthesia is denied; and it is further

ORDERED that American Transit shall, within 30 days of entry of this order, respond to the discovery requests served by Global Surgery and Safe Anesthesia on September 24, 2021 [*2](see NYSCEF No. 11); and it is further

ORDERED that if American Transit does not serve a renewed motion for default judgment and for summary judgment within 60 days of entry of this order, the action will be administratively dismissed; and it is further

ORDERED that Global Surgery and Safe Anesthesia shall serve a copy of this order with notice of its entry on all parties.


DATE 3/8/2022

Footnotes

Footnote 1:American Transit settled with Rivera and two of her treating providers. (See NYSCEF Nos. 3, 6, 8.)

Footnote 2:The affidavit appears to be a generic form document in which the names of the examining physician and the claimant, and the address of the physician’s office, are filled in using a word-processing macro or the equivalent. (See NYSCEF No. 17 at 4.) It states that on the two IME dates at issue, “Erika Rivera never checked in, never had his/her file pulled, [and] was never examined.” (Id. at 4 ¶ 6.)

Footnote 3:It is also unclear why a physician with an office in Manhattan, referred by a company with an office in Nassau County to conduct an examination on behalf of a company that is located in Brooklyn and is represented by counsel located in Brooklyn, would be executing an affidavit before a Suffolk County notary. (See generally NYSCEF Nos. 17, 20; see also NYSCEF No. 16 at 11.)

Legal questions

A question of no-fault law this decision rules on, from our Legal Questions pages. Bars count the decisions on the question by year and court, coloured by category; circles are this decision and the decisions on the question it cites or that cite it. Point at a bar or circle for details. The categories and summaries are Beynenson Law’s classification, made by a language model and checked by a second reading.

No-show defense: insurer's proof

Open the full map

Did the insurer prove its IME/EUO no-show defense: mailed, compliant scheduling requests and the claimant’s nonappearance?

This decision: Insurer failed to prove the nonappearance by someone with personal knowledge

Held the IME physician's unsigned, inconsistently notarized affidavit incompetent proof of nonappearance, and also found the IME requests and the follow-up after the nonappearance not shown timely under the regulations.

  • Appellate DivisionApp Div 53
  • Appellate TermApp Term 71
  • Trial courtsTrial 40
2023, Appellate Division: 4 decisions (3 Defense proved, 1 Requests not compliant)2022, Appellate Division: 8 decisions (3 Defense proved, 5 Requests not compliant)2021, Appellate Division: 2 decisions (2 Defense proved)2020, Appellate Division: 4 decisions (3 Defense proved, 1 Requests not compliant)2019, Appellate Division: 3 decisions (1 Defense proved, 1 Mailing not proved, 1 Requests not compliant)2018, Appellate Division: 5 decisions (2 Defense proved, 1 Mailing not proved, 2 Requests not compliant)2017, Appellate Division: 3 decisions (2 Defense proved, 1 Requests not compliant)2016, Appellate Division: 5 decisions (3 Defense proved, 1 Nonappearance not proved, 1 Requests not compliant)2015, Appellate Division: 7 decisions (2 Defense proved, 5 Requests not compliant)2014, Appellate Division: 2 decisions (2 Defense proved)2013, Appellate Division: 4 decisions (3 Defense proved, 1 Mailing not proved)2011, Appellate Division: 1 decision (1 Defense proved)2024, Appellate Division: 2 decisions (2 Defense proved)2025, Appellate Division: 3 decisions (2 Defense proved, 1 Requests not compliant)2019, Appellate Term: 3 decisions (1 Mailing not proved, 1 Nonappearance not proved, 1 Triable issue)2018, Appellate Term: 1 decision (1 Defense proved)2017, Appellate Term: 1 decision (1 Nonappearance not proved)2016, Appellate Term: 14 decisions (5 Defense proved, 6 Nonappearance not proved, 1 Requests not compliant, 2 Triable issue)2015, Appellate Term: 12 decisions (11 Defense proved, 1 Requests not compliant)2014, Appellate Term: 6 decisions (6 Defense proved)2013, Appellate Term: 5 decisions (4 Defense proved, 1 Mailing not proved)2012, Appellate Term: 8 decisions (6 Defense proved, 2 Mailing not proved)2011, Appellate Term: 7 decisions (6 Defense proved, 1 Mailing not proved)2010, Appellate Term: 2 decisions (2 Defense proved)2007, Appellate Term: 1 decision (1 Requests not compliant)2006, Appellate Term: 2 decisions (1 Requests not compliant, 1 Triable issue)2005, Appellate Term: 3 decisions (1 Defense proved, 2 Requests not compliant)2025, Appellate Term: 3 decisions (3 Defense proved)2026, Appellate Term: 2 decisions (2 Defense proved)2020, Appellate Term: 1 decision (1 Mailing not proved)2022, Trial courts: 8 decisions (2 Defense proved, 1 Mailing not proved, 1 Nonappearance not proved, 4 Requests not compliant)2021, Trial courts: 6 decisions (3 Defense proved, 2 Requests not compliant, 1 No-show excused)2020, Trial courts: 7 decisions (1 Mailing not proved, 6 Requests not compliant)2019, Trial courts: 1 decision (1 Defense proved)2018, Trial courts: 2 decisions (1 Defense proved, 1 Requests not compliant)2015, Trial courts: 1 decision (1 Defense proved)2014, Trial courts: 3 decisions (2 Defense proved, 1 Nonappearance not proved)2013, Trial courts: 4 decisions (2 Defense proved, 2 Nonappearance not proved)2009, Trial courts: 1 decision (1 Defense proved)2007, Trial courts: 1 decision (1 Requests not compliant)2024, Trial courts: 1 decision (1 Requests not compliant)2025, Trial courts: 2 decisions (1 Mailing not proved, 1 Nonappearance not proved)2026, Trial courts: 1 decision (1 Mailing not proved)2005, Trial courts: 1 decision (1 Defense proved)2023, Trial courts: 1 decision (1 Defense proved)This decision
20052010201520202025
Defense provedMailing not provedNonappearance not provedRequests not compliantTriable issueNo-show excusedThis decisionCites it or cited by itCited or followedDistinguished or limited

Of the 164 decisions on this question in the First Department courts and the Court of Appeals, 14 (this one included) are in the same category.

Cited in this decision

A label shows how this decision treated the case it cites.

  • American Tr. Ins. Co. v Longevity Med. Supply, Inc. (2015 NY Slip Op 06761) FollowedAn insurer seeking summary judgment on an IME no-show must prove compliance with the 30-day period in 11 NYCRR 65-3.5 (d).
  • Kemper Independence Ins. Co. v Cornerstone Chiropractic, P.C. (2020 NY Slip Op 03876) DistinguishedClaimants' failure to sign and return EUO transcripts violates a coverage condition precedent and warrants denial of benefits.

Similar decisions

  • American Tr. Ins. Co. v Lopez (2022 NY Slip Op 50218(U))The insurer failed to establish timely IME scheduling because it did not supply the answering providers' NF-3 verification forms.
  • American Tr. Ins. Co. v Martinez (2020 NY Slip Op 50930(U))The insurer failed to prove timely IME scheduling, and the assignor's default judgment did not preclude the provider's claim.
  • American Tr. Ins. Co. v Romero-Richiez (2020 NY Slip Op 51181(U))The insurer failed to show that its IME requests satisfied regulatory deadlines or preceded receipt of provider claims.
  • Jiang Acupuncture, P.C. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. (2021 NY Slip Op 50945(U))The insurer's IME no-show defense failed because the examinations were not timely scheduled under 11 NYCRR 65-3.5 (d).
  • American Tr. Ins. Co. v Wildex (2020 NY Slip Op 50929(U))The insurer failed to prove timely IME scheduling, and the assignor's default judgment did not preclude the provider's claim.
Beynenson Law

Tech-driven New York no-fault collections for healthcare providers.

About the firm

Contact

  • East Hampton, New York

  • 347-746-6001
  • contact@beynensonlaw.com
  • Contact form

Research

  • Search Case Law & Regulations
  • New Decisions
  • Decisions by Court
  • Legal Questions
  • No-Fault Regulations
  • Claim Process & Deadlines
  • Ask No-Fault AI

Arbitration Data

  • Arbitrator Scorecard
  • Award Volume
  • Arbitrator / Carrier Data
  • Provider / Carrier Data
  • Provider / Attorney Data
  • Arbitration Pro Extension

©2026 The Beynenson Law Group, PC. Terms of Use Privacy Policy

Site by khrystev.dev

Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. This website provides general information, not legal advice, and using it does not create an attorney-client relationship. Do not send confidential information through this site.