November 15, 2011

Lenox Hill Hosp. v Government Empls. Ins. Co. (2011 NY Slip Op 08330)

Headnote

The main issue in this case was whether Lenox Hill Hospital was entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the ground that Government Employees Insurance Company did not pay or deny the subject claim within 30 days. The court considered the limited nature of the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, as it only established the plaintiff's prima facie entitlement to judgment on this ground. The defendant's burden in opposition to the motion was to raise a triable issue of fact regarding its timely payment or denial of the claim, which it succeeded in doing by submitting evidence that it sent the plaintiff a denial of claim form within the 30-day time limit. Therefore, the court held that the denial of the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment was proper and affirmed the lower court's order.

Reported in New York Official Reports at Lenox Hill Hosp. v Government Empls. Ins. Co. (2011 NY Slip Op 08330)

Lenox Hill Hosp. v Government Empls. Ins. Co. (2011 NY Slip Op 08330)
Lenox Hill Hosp. v Government Empls. Ins. Co.
2011 NY Slip Op 08330 [89 AD3d 905]
November 15, 2011
Appellate Division, Second Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
As corrected through Wednesday, January 4th, 2012
Lenox Hill Hospital, as Assignee of Hector Jamie Robles, Appellant, et al., Plaintiff,
v
Government Employees Insurance Company, Respondent.

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

Teresa M. Spina, Woodbury, N.Y. (Jeanne M. Ortega and P. Stephanie Estevez of counsel), for respondent.

In an action to recover payment of no fault benefits under a policy of automobile insurance, the plaintiff Lenox Hill Hospital, as assignee of Hector Jamie Robles, appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Mahon, J.), entered April 21, 2011, which denied its motion for summary judgment on the first cause of action.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Given the limited nature of the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, which established the plaintiff’s prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law solely on the ground that the defendant did not pay or deny the subject claim within 30 days (see 11 NYCRR 65-3.8 [c]), the defendant’s only burden in opposition to the motion was to raise a triable issue of fact regarding its timely payment or denial of the claim (see e.g. Westchester Med. Ctr. v Clarendon Natl. Ins. Co., 57 AD3d 659, 659-660 [2008]; see generally Stukas v Streiter, 83 AD3d 18, 24 [2011]). The defendant succeeded in raising such an issue of fact by submitting evidence that it sent the plaintiff a denial of claim form within the 30-day time limit. Accordingly, the motion was properly denied without regard to the plaintiff’s additional contention, improperly raised for the first time in its reply papers on the motion (see Djoganopoulos v Polkes, 67 AD3d 726, 727 [2009]; Crummell v Avis Rent A Car Sys., Inc., 62 AD3d 825, 826 [2009]), that the medical reports upon which the defendant relied to establish the merits of its denial of the claim were not in proper evidentiary form. Mastro, J.P., Chambers, Sgroi and Miller, JJ., concur.