Elite Med. NY, P.C. v American Tr. Ins. Co. (2013 NY Slip Op 51738(U))

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

Appeal and cross appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Dawn Jimenez Salta, J.), entered September 26, 2011. The order, insofar as appealed from by defendant, denied defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The order, insofar as cross-appealed from by plaintiff, denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment.

ORDERED that the order is modified by providing that defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted; as so modified, the order is affirmed, with $25 costs to defendant.

In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, plaintiff moved for summary judgment on the ground, among others, that defendant was precluded from offering any evidence in support of its defenses because it had failed to timely comply with a so-ordered discovery stipulation. Defendant cross-moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the grounds of lack of medical necessity and outstanding verification. The Civil Court denied both motions; found, among other things, that defendant had established timely denials of the claims at issue; and limited the trial to medical necessity. This appeal and cross appeal ensued.

Contrary to plaintiff’s argument, defendant offered a reasonable excuse of law office failure for its three-week delay in complying with the directives of the conditional discovery order (see Rothman v Westfield Group, 101 AD3d 703 [2012]; Goldsmith Motors Corp. v Chemical Bank, 300 AD2d 440 [2002]; see also Trimed Med. Supply, Inc. v American Tr. Ins. Co., 33 Misc 3d 131[A], 2011 NY Slip Op 51880[U] [App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2011]; Terra Chiropractic, P.C. v Hertz Claim Mgt. Corp., 29 Misc 3d 127[A], 2010 NY Slip Op 51722[U] [App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2010]). Defendant also demonstrated meritorious defenses to the action. Accordingly, the Civil Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in declining to preclude defendant from presenting its evidence.

As to two of the three claims at issue in this case, defendant submitted affirmed peer review reports which set forth a factual basis and medical rationale for the doctor’s [*2]determinations that there was a lack of medical necessity for the services. In opposition, plaintiff failed to submit any medical evidence to rebut the peer review reports. Since plaintiff has not challenged the Civil Court’s finding that, in effect, defendant is otherwise entitled to judgment, the branch of defendant’s cross motion seeking summary judgment dismissing so much of the complaint as sought to recover upon these two claims should have been granted (see Park Slope Med. v Praetorian Ins. Co., 39 Misc 3d 141[A], 2013 NY Slip Op 50761[U] [App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2013]; A. Khodadadi Radiology, P.C. v NY Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 16 Misc 3d 131[A], 2007 NY Slip Op 51342[U] [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2007]).

As to the remaining claim, the affidavits submitted by defendant were sufficient to establish that defendant had timely mailed requests and follow-up requests for verification (see St. Vincent’s Hosp. of Richmond v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 50 AD3d 1123 [2008]; Delta Diagnostic Radiology, P.C. v Chubb Group of Ins., 17 Misc 3d 16 [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2007]), and that plaintiff had failed to respond to the verification requests prior to the commencement of this action. Plaintiff offered no evidence in opposition. Consequently, the branch of defendant’s cross motion seeking summary judgment dismissing as premature so much of the complaint as sought to recover upon this claim should also have been granted, as defendant’s time to pay or deny the claim had not yet elapsed (see Insurance Department Regulations [11 NYCRR] § 65-3.8 [a]; Hospital for Joint Diseases v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 44 AD3d 903 [2007]; Central Suffolk Hosp. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 24 AD3d 492 [2005]; Hospital for Joint Diseases v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 8 AD3d 533 [2004]).

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

Pesce, P.J., Weston and Rios, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: October 08, 2013