• 347-746-6001
  • contact@beynensonlaw.com
Beynenson Law
Beynenson Law
  • Services
    • Search
    • No-Fault AI
    • New Decisions
    • Legal Questions
    • No-Fault Regulations
    • 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
    • No-Fault AI
    • New Decisions
    • Legal Questions
    • No-Fault Regulations
    • Arbitrator Scorecard
    • Award Volume
    • Arbitrator / Carrier Data
    • Provider / Carrier Data
    • Provider / Attorney Data
    • Arbitration Pro Extension
  • About Us
  • Contact
June 28, 2011

Mount Sinai Hosp. v Government Empls. Ins. Co. (2011 NY Slip Op 05679)

https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/mount-sinai-hosp-v-government-empls-ins-co-2011-ny-slip-op-05679/

Court
Appellate Division, Second Department
Decided
June 28, 2011
Citation
2011 NY Slip Op 05679 · 85 AD3d 1135
Posture
Summary judgment
Outcome
Insurer prevailed
Issues
Timeliness and preclusion Provider's prima facie case
Legal questions
Proof of mailing · Claimant's prima facie case on motions (see the maps)
Cite as
Mount Sinai Hosp. v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 85 AD3d 1135 (2d Dept 2011)

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 raised a triable issue as to whether it issued a denial of claim form to the hospital. The hospital sought summary judgment on the fourth cause of action for no-fault medical payments. It established a prima facie case by demonstrating mailing and receipt of the billing forms and failure to pay or deny within 30 days under Insurance Law § 5106 (a) and 11 NYCRR 65-3.5. The Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed the order granting the hospital's motion and denied summary judgment because the insurer's opposition raised a factual dispute over issuance of the denial.

Reported in New York Official Reports at Mount Sinai Hosp. v Government Empls. Ins. Co. (2011 NY Slip Op 05679)

Mount Sinai Hosp. v Government Empls. Ins. Co.
2011 NY Slip Op 05679 [85 AD3d 1135]
June 28, 2011
Appellate Division, Second Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
As corrected through Wednesday, August 10, 2011
Mount Sinai Hospital, as Assignee of Meilun Chun, et al., Plaintiffs, and New York and Presbyterian Hospital, as Assignee of Gregory Berkley, Respondent,
v
Government Employees Insurance Company, Appellant.

—[*1] Teresa M. Spina, Woodbury, N.Y. (Jeanne M. Ortega and P. Stephanie Estevez of counsel), for appellant.

Joseph Henig, P.C., Bellmore, N.Y., for respondent.

In an action to recover no-fault medical payments under certain insurance policies, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Marber, J.), entered June 29, 2010, which granted the motion of the plaintiff New York and Presbyterian Hospital, as assignee of Gregory Berkley, for summary judgment on the fourth cause of action.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion of the plaintiff New York and Presbyterian Hospital, as assignee of Gregory Berkley, for summary judgment on its fourth cause of action is denied.

The plaintiff New York and Presbyterian Hospital, as assignee of Gregory Berkley (hereinafter the hospital), made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law with respect to the fourth cause of action to recover no-fault medical payments by demonstrating that the necessary billing forms had been mailed to and received by the defendant and that the defendant had failed to either pay or deny the claim within the requisite 30-day period (see Insurance Law § 5106 [a]; 11 NYCRR 65-3.5; Hospital for Joint Diseases v Travelers Prop. Cas. Ins. Co., 9 NY3d 312, 317-318 [2007]; Westchester Med. Ctr. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 81 AD3d 929 [2011]; Westchester Med. Ctr. v Lincoln Gen. Ins. Co., 60 AD3d 1045, 1046 [2009]).

However, in opposition, the defendant raised a triable issue of fact as to whether it issued a denial of claim form dated April 2, 2008, to the hospital (see NYU-Hospital for Joint Diseases v Esurance Ins. Co., 84 AD3d 1190 [2011]; St. Vincent’s Hosp. of Richmond v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 50 AD3d 1123, 1124 [2008]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have denied the hospital’s motion for summary judgment on its fourth cause of action. Rivera, J.P., Eng, Roman and Miller, JJ., concur.

Legal questions (2)

Questions 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.

Proof of mailing

Open the full map

Did a party’s evidence establish that it mailed a no-fault claim, denial, verification request or examination notice?

This decision: The insurer's (or its agent's) proof established mailing of its denial, verification request or IME/EUO notice

Held the insurer's opposition proof raised a triable issue as to whether it issued a denial of claim form, which defeated the hospital's summary judgment motion despite its prima facie showing.

  • Court of AppealsCt App 1
  • Appellate DivisionApp Div 37
  • Appellate TermApp Term 1,214
  • Trial courtsTrial 148
2015, Court of Appeals: 1 decision (1 Provider proved mailing)2023, Appellate Division: 1 decision (1 Insurer proved mailing)2020, Appellate Division: 1 decision (1 Insurer proved mailing)2016, Appellate Division: 3 decisions (1 Insurer proved mailing, 2 Insurer failed to prove)2015, Appellate Division: 2 decisions (2 Insurer failed to prove)2014, Appellate Division: 3 decisions (2 Insurer proved mailing, 1 Provider proved mailing)2013, Appellate Division: 1 decision (1 Provider proved mailing)2012, Appellate Division: 1 decision (1 Provider proved mailing)2011, Appellate Division: 6 decisions (3 Insurer proved mailing, 1 Insurer failed to prove, 2 Provider proved mailing)2010, Appellate Division: 1 decision (1 Provider proved mailing)2008, Appellate Division: 2 decisions (2 Insurer proved mailing)2007, Appellate Division: 7 decisions (1 Insurer proved mailing, 1 Insurer failed to prove, 3 Provider proved mailing, 1 Provider failed to prove, 1 Mixed rulings)2006, Appellate Division: 3 decisions (2 Insurer failed to prove, 1 Provider failed to prove)2005, Appellate Division: 2 decisions (2 Insurer failed to prove)2004, Appellate Division: 3 decisions (2 Insurer failed to prove, 1 Triable issue on mailing)2026, Appellate Division: 1 decision (1 Insurer failed to prove)2023, Appellate Term: 6 decisions (5 Insurer proved mailing, 1 Triable issue on mailing)2022, Appellate Term: 44 decisions (32 Insurer proved mailing, 3 Insurer failed to prove, 1 Provider proved mailing, 3 Provider failed to prove, 5 Triable issue on mailing)2021, Appellate Term: 21 decisions (13 Insurer proved mailing, 2 Insurer failed to prove, 5 Triable issue on mailing, 1 Mixed rulings)2020, Appellate Term: 31 decisions (24 Insurer proved mailing, 2 Insurer failed to prove, 5 Triable issue on mailing)2019, Appellate Term: 81 decisions (59 Insurer proved mailing, 5 Insurer failed to prove, 2 Provider proved mailing, 2 Provider failed to prove, 12 Triable issue on mailing, 1 Mixed rulings)2018, Appellate Term: 74 decisions (46 Insurer proved mailing, 16 Insurer failed to prove, 1 Provider failed to prove, 10 Triable issue on mailing, 1 Mixed rulings)2017, Appellate Term: 115 decisions (60 Insurer proved mailing, 26 Insurer failed to prove, 4 Provider proved mailing, 2 Provider failed to prove, 21 Triable issue on mailing, 2 Mixed rulings)2016, Appellate Term: 103 decisions (44 Insurer proved mailing, 30 Insurer failed to prove, 3 Provider proved mailing, 2 Provider failed to prove, 21 Triable issue on mailing, 3 Mixed rulings)2015, Appellate Term: 97 decisions (66 Insurer proved mailing, 10 Insurer failed to prove, 1 Provider proved mailing, 3 Provider failed to prove, 9 Triable issue on mailing, 8 Mixed rulings)2014, Appellate Term: 68 decisions (55 Insurer proved mailing, 4 Insurer failed to prove, 2 Provider proved mailing, 3 Triable issue on mailing, 4 Mixed rulings)2013, Appellate Term: 73 decisions (62 Insurer proved mailing, 6 Insurer failed to prove, 1 Provider proved mailing, 1 Provider failed to prove, 3 Mixed rulings)2012, Appellate Term: 110 decisions (87 Insurer proved mailing, 14 Insurer failed to prove, 1 Provider proved mailing, 3 Provider failed to prove, 1 Triable issue on mailing, 4 Mixed rulings)2011, Appellate Term: 69 decisions (56 Insurer proved mailing, 8 Insurer failed to prove, 2 Provider proved mailing, 1 Triable issue on mailing, 2 Mixed rulings)2010, Appellate Term: 78 decisions (67 Insurer proved mailing, 4 Insurer failed to prove, 2 Provider proved mailing, 2 Provider failed to prove, 1 Triable issue on mailing, 2 Mixed rulings)2009, Appellate Term: 53 decisions (29 Insurer proved mailing, 11 Insurer failed to prove, 6 Provider proved mailing, 3 Provider failed to prove, 4 Mixed rulings)2008, Appellate Term: 28 decisions (13 Insurer proved mailing, 11 Insurer failed to prove, 2 Provider proved mailing, 1 Provider failed to prove, 1 Mixed rulings)2007, Appellate Term: 30 decisions (9 Insurer proved mailing, 16 Insurer failed to prove, 3 Provider proved mailing, 2 Mixed rulings)2006, Appellate Term: 75 decisions (6 Insurer proved mailing, 19 Insurer failed to prove, 21 Provider proved mailing, 21 Provider failed to prove, 8 Mixed rulings)2005, Appellate Term: 27 decisions (2 Insurer proved mailing, 14 Insurer failed to prove, 7 Provider proved mailing, 3 Provider failed to prove, 1 Mixed rulings)2004, Appellate Term: 12 decisions (1 Insurer proved mailing, 4 Insurer failed to prove, 3 Provider proved mailing, 2 Provider failed to prove, 1 Triable issue on mailing, 1 Mixed rulings)2003, Appellate Term: 3 decisions (3 Provider proved mailing)2024, Appellate Term: 4 decisions (2 Insurer proved mailing, 1 Insurer failed to prove, 1 Provider failed to prove)2025, Appellate Term: 4 decisions (3 Insurer proved mailing, 1 Provider proved mailing)2026, Appellate Term: 8 decisions (3 Insurer proved mailing, 3 Insurer failed to prove, 2 Triable issue on mailing)2023, Trial courts: 4 decisions (2 Insurer proved mailing, 2 Provider proved mailing)2022, Trial courts: 5 decisions (2 Insurer proved mailing, 2 Provider proved mailing, 1 Mixed rulings)2021, Trial courts: 18 decisions (12 Insurer proved mailing, 1 Provider proved mailing, 3 Provider failed to prove, 2 Mixed rulings)2020, Trial courts: 5 decisions (1 Insurer proved mailing, 2 Provider proved mailing, 2 Mixed rulings)2019, Trial courts: 4 decisions (3 Insurer failed to prove, 1 Triable issue on mailing)2018, Trial courts: 1 decision (1 Insurer proved mailing)2017, Trial courts: 7 decisions (5 Insurer proved mailing, 2 Insurer failed to prove)2016, Trial courts: 4 decisions (2 Insurer proved mailing, 1 Provider proved mailing, 1 Triable issue on mailing)2015, Trial courts: 3 decisions (3 Provider proved mailing)2013, Trial courts: 4 decisions (3 Insurer proved mailing, 1 Insurer failed to prove)2012, Trial courts: 10 decisions (5 Insurer proved mailing, 2 Insurer failed to prove, 2 Provider proved mailing, 1 Triable issue on mailing)2011, Trial courts: 4 decisions (2 Insurer proved mailing, 1 Insurer failed to prove, 1 Provider failed to prove)2010, Trial courts: 6 decisions (3 Insurer proved mailing, 1 Insurer failed to prove, 2 Provider proved mailing)2009, Trial courts: 9 decisions (4 Insurer proved mailing, 2 Insurer failed to prove, 3 Provider proved mailing)2008, Trial courts: 13 decisions (3 Insurer proved mailing, 1 Insurer failed to prove, 7 Provider proved mailing, 1 Provider failed to prove, 1 Mixed rulings)2007, Trial courts: 8 decisions (1 Insurer proved mailing, 5 Insurer failed to prove, 2 Provider proved mailing)2006, Trial courts: 7 decisions (1 Insurer proved mailing, 6 Insurer failed to prove)2005, Trial courts: 15 decisions (2 Insurer proved mailing, 8 Insurer failed to prove, 1 Provider proved mailing, 4 Provider failed to prove)2004, Trial courts: 10 decisions (5 Insurer failed to prove, 2 Provider proved mailing, 3 Provider failed to prove)2024, Trial courts: 2 decisions (1 Insurer failed to prove, 1 Provider failed to prove)2025, Trial courts: 2 decisions (2 Insurer proved mailing)2026, Trial courts: 7 decisions (3 Insurer proved mailing, 1 Provider proved mailing, 2 Provider failed to prove, 1 Triable issue on mailing)This decision
20052010201520202025
Insurer proved mailingInsurer failed to proveProvider proved mailingProvider failed to proveTriable issue on mailingMixed rulingsThis decisionCites it or cited by itCited or followed

Of the 1,400 decisions on this question in the Second Department courts and the Court of Appeals, 809 (this one included) are in the same category.

Claimant's prima facie case on motions

Open the full map

On summary judgment or another pretrial motion, what must a no-fault claimant show to establish its prima facie case?

This decision: Claimant's proof held to make out its prima facie case (rules on the question, but another ground decided the case)

Held the hospital made its prima facie showing by demonstrating the billing forms were mailed and received and not paid or denied within 30 days, though the insurer's opposition then raised a triable issue.

  • Court of AppealsCt App 2
  • Appellate DivisionApp Div 81
  • Appellate TermApp Term 843
  • Trial courtsTrial 139
2015, Court of Appeals: 1 decision (1 Proof sufficient)2007, Court of Appeals: 1 decision (1 Proof sufficient)2022, Appellate Division: 1 decision (1 Proof sufficient)2019, Appellate Division: 1 decision (1 Proof sufficient)2014, Appellate Division: 10 decisions (9 Proof sufficient, 1 Overdue not shown)2013, Appellate Division: 2 decisions (2 Proof sufficient)2012, Appellate Division: 2 decisions (2 Proof sufficient)2011, Appellate Division: 11 decisions (11 Proof sufficient)2010, Appellate Division: 3 decisions (2 Proof sufficient, 1 Overdue not shown)2009, Appellate Division: 3 decisions (2 Proof sufficient, 1 Other element missing)2008, Appellate Division: 8 decisions (6 Proof sufficient, 1 Overdue not shown, 1 Business-record foundation lacking)2007, Appellate Division: 16 decisions (13 Proof sufficient, 2 Mailing/receipt not shown, 1 Overdue not shown)2006, Appellate Division: 5 decisions (3 Proof sufficient, 1 Mailing/receipt not shown, 1 Other element missing)2005, Appellate Division: 5 decisions (5 Proof sufficient)2004, Appellate Division: 11 decisions (10 Proof sufficient, 1 Overdue not shown)2026, Appellate Division: 1 decision (1 Proof sufficient)2003, Appellate Division: 2 decisions (1 Proof sufficient, 1 Overdue not shown)2022, Appellate Term: 14 decisions (2 Mailing/receipt not shown, 12 Overdue not shown)2021, Appellate Term: 5 decisions (1 Proof sufficient, 4 Overdue not shown)2020, Appellate Term: 13 decisions (13 Overdue not shown)2019, Appellate Term: 23 decisions (22 Overdue not shown, 1 Other element missing)2018, Appellate Term: 26 decisions (3 Proof sufficient, 1 Mailing/receipt not shown, 22 Overdue not shown)2017, Appellate Term: 38 decisions (3 Proof sufficient, 1 Mailing/receipt not shown, 34 Overdue not shown)2016, Appellate Term: 41 decisions (7 Proof sufficient, 34 Overdue not shown)2015, Appellate Term: 44 decisions (12 Proof sufficient, 1 Mailing/receipt not shown, 30 Overdue not shown, 1 Business-record foundation lacking)2014, Appellate Term: 22 decisions (10 Proof sufficient, 12 Overdue not shown)2013, Appellate Term: 34 decisions (17 Proof sufficient, 11 Overdue not shown, 6 Business-record foundation lacking)2012, Appellate Term: 32 decisions (3 Proof sufficient, 2 Mailing/receipt not shown, 11 Overdue not shown, 16 Business-record foundation lacking)2011, Appellate Term: 29 decisions (6 Proof sufficient, 1 Mailing/receipt not shown, 13 Overdue not shown, 9 Business-record foundation lacking)2010, Appellate Term: 36 decisions (22 Proof sufficient, 3 Mailing/receipt not shown, 10 Business-record foundation lacking, 1 Other element missing)2009, Appellate Term: 52 decisions (28 Proof sufficient, 3 Mailing/receipt not shown, 21 Business-record foundation lacking)2008, Appellate Term: 49 decisions (16 Proof sufficient, 1 Mailing/receipt not shown, 32 Business-record foundation lacking)2007, Appellate Term: 104 decisions (8 Proof sufficient, 2 Mailing/receipt not shown, 94 Business-record foundation lacking)2006, Appellate Term: 112 decisions (76 Proof sufficient, 26 Mailing/receipt not shown, 1 Overdue not shown, 6 Business-record foundation lacking, 3 Other element missing)2005, Appellate Term: 90 decisions (84 Proof sufficient, 5 Mailing/receipt not shown, 1 Overdue not shown)2004, Appellate Term: 57 decisions (43 Proof sufficient, 10 Mailing/receipt not shown, 4 Other element missing)2003, Appellate Term: 7 decisions (7 Proof sufficient)2023, Appellate Term: 3 decisions (3 Overdue not shown)2024, Appellate Term: 7 decisions (1 Mailing/receipt not shown, 6 Overdue not shown)2025, Appellate Term: 3 decisions (1 Proof sufficient, 1 Mailing/receipt not shown, 1 Overdue not shown)2026, Appellate Term: 2 decisions (2 Mailing/receipt not shown)2023, Trial courts: 2 decisions (2 Proof sufficient)2022, Trial courts: 4 decisions (2 Proof sufficient, 2 Overdue not shown)2021, Trial courts: 11 decisions (6 Proof sufficient, 2 Mailing/receipt not shown, 2 Overdue not shown, 1 Other element missing)2020, Trial courts: 5 decisions (3 Proof sufficient, 1 Overdue not shown, 1 Other element missing)2019, Trial courts: 6 decisions (5 Proof sufficient, 1 Mailing/receipt not shown)2018, Trial courts: 2 decisions (2 Overdue not shown)2017, Trial courts: 3 decisions (1 Proof sufficient, 1 Overdue not shown, 1 Other element missing)2016, Trial courts: 4 decisions (4 Proof sufficient)2013, Trial courts: 1 decision (1 Proof sufficient)2012, Trial courts: 5 decisions (4 Proof sufficient, 1 Business-record foundation lacking)2011, Trial courts: 3 decisions (2 Proof sufficient, 1 Business-record foundation lacking)2010, Trial courts: 3 decisions (2 Proof sufficient, 1 Business-record foundation lacking)2009, Trial courts: 7 decisions (7 Proof sufficient)2008, Trial courts: 14 decisions (8 Proof sufficient, 1 Mailing/receipt not shown, 1 Overdue not shown, 4 Business-record foundation lacking)2007, Trial courts: 7 decisions (5 Proof sufficient, 2 Business-record foundation lacking)2006, Trial courts: 16 decisions (13 Proof sufficient, 2 Overdue not shown, 1 Other element missing)2005, Trial courts: 22 decisions (14 Proof sufficient, 5 Mailing/receipt not shown, 3 Business-record foundation lacking)2004, Trial courts: 15 decisions (9 Proof sufficient, 2 Mailing/receipt not shown, 4 Other element missing)2025, Trial courts: 2 decisions (1 Proof sufficient, 1 Mailing/receipt not shown)2026, Trial courts: 4 decisions (3 Proof sufficient, 1 Mailing/receipt not shown)2014, Trial courts: 1 decision (1 Proof sufficient)2015, Trial courts: 1 decision (1 Proof sufficient)2024, Trial courts: 1 decision (1 Proof sufficient)This decision
20052010201520202025
Proof sufficientMailing/receipt not shownOverdue not shownBusiness-record foundation lackingOther element missingThis decisionCites it or cited by itCited or followed

Of the 1,065 decisions on this question in the Second Department courts and the Court of Appeals, 513 (this one included) are in the same category.

Cited in this decision

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

  • Hospital for Joint Diseases v Travelers Prop. Cas. Ins. Co. (2007 NY Slip Op 09067)An insurer that fails to timely seek verification of an assignment cannot later contest its validity when the underlying claim is covered.
  • Westchester Med. Ctr. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. (2011 NY Slip Op 01458)The insurer's defective denial and insufficient mailing proof precluded its intoxication exclusion defense.
  • Westchester Med. Ctr. v Lincoln Gen. Ins. Co. (2009 NY Slip Op 02589)The insurer's investigation letters did not toll the 30-day period to pay or deny the provider's claim.
  • NYU-Hospital for Joint Diseases v Esurance Ins. Co. (2011 NY Slip Op 04436) FollowedThe insurer raised factual issues about timely denial and whether the assignor's injury resulted from driving while intoxicated.
  • St. Vincent’s Hosp. of Richmond v Government Empls. Ins. Co. (2008 NY Slip Op 04072) FollowedThe insurer raised factual issues concerning a proper timely denial and its entitlement to deny the hospital's claim.

Cited by

  • Westchester Med. Ctr. v Lancer Ins. Co. (2012 NY Slip Op 02867)The insurer defeated the provider's summary judgment motion by proving timely verification requests and denial after verification was received.

Similar decisions

  • New York & Presbyt. Hosp. v Travelers Prop. Cas. Ins. Co. (2007 NY Slip Op 01537)The hospital established receipt of its no-fault billing and the insurer's failure to respond within the required 30-day period.
  • Lenox Hill Hosp. v Government Empls. Ins. Co. (2011 NY Slip Op 08330)The insurer's evidence of a timely denial raised a triable issue defeating the provider's motion based solely on untimeliness.
  • Mount Sinai Hosp. v Allstate Ins. Co. (2006 NY Slip Op 00490)The insurer raised a triable issue about the provider's verification compliance but failed to establish entitlement to dismissal.
  • Montefiore Med. Ctr. v Government Empls. Ins. Co. (2006 NY Slip Op 08953)An insurer's additional verification request following an N-F5 submission need not use a prescribed form to toll the payment deadline.
  • St. Barnabas Hosp. v American Tr. Ins. Co. (2008 NY Slip Op 09585)The insurer raised a triable issue whether the provider timely complied with its verification demand, defeating the provider's summary judgment motion.
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

Case Law

  • Search
  • No-Fault AI
  • New Decisions
  • Legal Questions
  • No-Fault Regulations

Arbitration Data

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

©2026 The Beynenson Law Firm, 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.