# Could the insurer contest the validity of the provider’s assignment of benefits, or had it waived that defense? **Short answer: Settled statewide by the Court of Appeals.** Hospital for Joint Diseases v Travelers (Court of Appeals 2007, 6-1) settled that a defect or deficiency in the assignment does not implicate a lack of coverage, so an insurer that does not timely seek verification of the assignment (65-3.5, 65-3.11 [c]) or deny on that ground is precluded from contesting it, and a claim form stating the signature is 'on file' satisfies any prima facie burden absent timely verification. It adopted the Second and Third Department line (New York Hosp. Med. Ctr. of Queens v NY Cent. 2004, Nyack v Metropolitan 2005, Hospital for Joint Diseases v Allstate 2005, LMK 2006). Before 2007 some trial courts held the assignment an essential, non-waivable element (Siegel, Civ Ct Kings 2004; T&G Med. Supplies v National Grange, Civ Ct 2005; Elite Med. Care, Civ Ct 2006) and an Appellate Term dissent (Golia, J., Medwide 2005, Davydov 2009) would not extend waiver to a paper that is not an assignment at all or names another entity; these are superseded or minority views. Open edges: whether waiver applies where no assignment exists at all (App Term 2d says yes: Urban Radiology 2013, Beal-Medea 2016; but AD2 in South Nassau 2025 upheld, as not irrational, a master arbitrator's lack-of-standing ruling on an objection first raised at the hearing), and the insurer wins when it timely requests a proper assignment and does not get it (Doshi 2006; Sound Shore 2013). Scope: Deciding this question means ruling on an insurer's defense that the claimant (a provider, hospital or supplier suing or arbitrating as assignee) has no valid assignment of the injured person's no-fault benefits: the assignment is missing, unsigned or marked signature "on file", unauthenticated, undated, names no assignee or a different entity, was signed by or for a minor, is only an authorization to pay, or was revoked (11 NYCRR 65-3.11 [b]-[d]). It covers both whether the defense succeeds on the merits and whether the insurer forfeited it by not requesting verification of the assignment or the original assignment form in time (65-3.5, 65-3.11 [c]), not stating the defect in a timely denial, or not raising it in its answer or before the arbitrator, and whether proof of the assignment is part of the claimant's prima facie case. Categories record what the court held on the assignment challenge in this case. - Decisions: 109 in the database, the most recent decided 2025-10-29 - Page: https://www.beynensonlaw.com/no-fault-topics/assignment-validity/ ## Leading authorities - [Hospital for Joint Diseases v Travelers Prop. Cas. Ins. Co. (2007 NY Slip Op 09067)](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/hospital-for-joint-diseases-v-travelers-prop-cas-ins-co-2007-ny-slip-op-09067/) — Court of Appeals, 2007. Assignment defects are not coverage defenses; precluded without timely verification: An insurer that received claim and assignment forms stating the patient's signature was 'on file' and neither sought verification of the assignment nor paid or denied within 30 days is precluded from contesting the assignment's validity, because a defective assignment does not implicate a lack of coverage; such a form satisfies any prima facie burden absent timely verification. - [Hospital for Joint Diseases v Allstate Ins. Co. (2005 NY Slip Op 06192)](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/hospital-for-joint-diseases-v-allstate-ins-co-2005-ny-slip-op-06192/) — Appellate Division, Second Department, 2005. 'Signature on file' forms; no timely objection, so no standing defense: Supreme Court erred in holding the hospital lacked standing without proof of a valid assignment from each patient: the facility forms said the signatures were 'on file' and the insurer neither objected to the forms nor sought verification of the assignments, so it waived any defense based on them. - [LMK Psychological Servs., P.C. v Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. (2006 NY Slip Op 04486)](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/lmk-psychological-servs-p-c-v-liberty-mut-ins-co-2006-ny-slip-op-04486/) — Appellate Division, Third Department, 2006. Third Department: unauthenticated assignments; objection waived without 10-day verification: The insurer's objection that the assignor's signatures on the assignment forms were not authenticated was waived because it did not request verification of the assignments within the 10-day period the regulation allows. - [New York & Presbyt. Hosp. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. (2006 NY Slip Op 05336)](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/new-york-presbyt-hosp-v-new-york-cent-mut-fire-ins-co-2006-ny-slip-op-05336/) — Appellate Division, Second Department, 2006. Unsigned assignment forms at trial: hospitals lacked standing: After a nonjury trial, the judgment for the hospitals was reversed and the complaint dismissed because the proof at trial included only unsigned assignment of benefit forms, so the hospitals lacked standing; the decision does not discuss verification or waiver. - [Beal-Medea Prods., Inc. v Geico Gen. Ins. Co. (2016 NY Slip Op 50594(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/beal-medea-prods-inc-v-geico-gen-ins-co-2016-ny-slip-op50594u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2016. Assignment not part of prima facie case unless timely raised: Dismissing at trial because the assignment of benefits was not admitted was error: a no-fault plaintiff need not submit an executed assignment to make its prima facie case, and the assignment becomes a subject of inquiry only if the insurer first shows it timely and properly raised the issue. - [Doshi Diagnostic Imaging Servs. v Progressive Ins. Co. (2006 NY Slip Op 51430(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/doshi-diagnostic-imaging-servs-v-progressive-ins-co-2006-ny-slip-op-51430u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2006. Timely verification request for proper assignment tolls; claim not overdue: Where the insurer timely requested and followed up for a proper assignment, and the NF-AOB supplied lacked the provider's signature, the claimant's failure to supply the requested assignment tolled the insurer's time, so benefits were not overdue and the complaint was dismissed. - Presbyterian Hosp. in City of N.Y. v Maryland Cas. Co., 90 NY2d 274 (not in the database). 30-day preclusion rule on which the waiver of assignment objections rests. - Central Gen. Hosp. v Chubb Group of Ins. Cos., 90 NY2d 195 (not in the database). Lack-of-coverage exception to preclusion; Hospital for Joint Diseases held an assignment defect is not within it. - Presbyterian Hosp. in City of N.Y. v Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 233 AD2d 433, lv dismissed 89 NY2d 1030 (not in the database). Early holding that an invalid-assignment defense not preserved by timely objection is lost; cited in Hospital for Joint Diseases fn 5 and many App Term memoranda. - Leon v Martinez, 84 NY2d 83 (not in the database). An assignment requires a perfected transaction vesting a present right in the assignee; relied on in 9820 and the Hospital for Joint Diseases dissent. - St. Clare's Hosp. v Allcity Ins. Co., 201 AD2d 718 (not in the database). Failure to object to claim-form completeness within 10 days waives defects; ancestor of the assignment-waiver line (cited in 10480, 10484). ## Governing regulations Whether the insurer lost the defense by not seeking verification or denying in time comes from the case law, not from Part 65. - [11 NYCRR 65-3.11 (b)](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/no-fault-regulations/11-nycrr-65-3-11/#b): For direct payment a provider must submit an authorization to pay benefits or a properly executed assignment on the NF-3, NF-4, NF-5 or NF-AOB; an authorization to pay does not transfer all rights from the injured person to the provider. - [11 NYCRR 65-3.11 (c)](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/no-fault-regulations/11-nycrr-65-3-11/#c): The insurer may request the original assignment or authorization to pay in writing to establish proof of claim; under the case law an insurer that does not seek it in time, or deny on the defect, may not contest the assignment. - [11 NYCRR 65-3.11 (d)](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/no-fault-regulations/11-nycrr-65-3-11/#d) [also relevant]: An assignment furnished to the insurer cannot be revoked unilaterally after the services it covers were rendered; revoking it for services not yet rendered requires written notice that the assignee was told. - [11 NYCRR 65-3.5 (b)](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/no-fault-regulations/11-nycrr-65-3-5/#b) [also relevant]: Additional verification must be requested within 15 business days of receipt of the verification forms (the initial forms within 10 business days of the application, 65-3.5 (a)); under the case law a request for the assignment is such verification, and the defect is waived without one. - [11 NYCRR 65-3.8 (c)](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/no-fault-regulations/11-nycrr-65-3-8/#c) [also relevant]: The insurer must pay or deny within 30 calendar days after proof of claim; the Court of Appeals held that an insurer that neither sought verification of the assignment nor denied on it in that time is precluded from contesting it, because a defective assignment is not a lack of coverage. - [11 NYCRR 65-3.8 (a) (1)](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/no-fault-regulations/11-nycrr-65-3-8/#a-1) [also relevant]: Benefits are overdue only 30 days after proof of claim, which includes all requested verification; under the case law a timely request for a proper assignment that goes unanswered tolls that period, so the claim is not overdue and the insurer wins. ## Categories - **Defense waived**: The court holds that the insurer may not litigate the assignment's validity or absence because it failed to request verification of the assignment (or the original assignment under 11 NYCRR 65-3.11 [c]) within the regulatory period, failed to object to the completeness of the claim forms within 10/15 business days, did not state the defect in a timely denial of claim, did not plead the defense in its answer or a pre-answer motion, or did not raise it before the arbitrator; or holds that a claim form stating the assignor's signature is 'on file' satisfies the claimant's burden because the insurer did not timely seek verification (Hospital for Joint Diseases v Travelers); or that the assignment becomes a subject of inquiry only if the insurer first shows it timely and properly raised the issue (Beal-Medea, Urban Radiology). Also: an insurer that requested specific assignment forms and received them cannot later object to them (New York Hosp. Med. Ctr. of Queens v Country Wide 7562). Result: the assignment objection is not considered on the merits. - **Assignment sufficient**: The court rejects the insurer's assignment challenge on its merits: the regulations do not require authentication of the assignor's signature; the submitted assignment conforms to 65-3.11 (b); the claimant is the entity named (or the variance is explained); an assignment signed by a minor's parent or by the minor is effective; the assignor's later revocation is ineffective under 65-3.11 (d); the claimant submitted the assignment and the insurer offered nothing to the contrary; or proof of the assignment is not an element of the claimant's prima facie case. On Article 75 review, includes vacating an award that held the assignment ineffective without basis in law (Fast Care). - **Assignment defense upheld**: The court holds that the claimant lacked standing or could not recover because it had no valid assignment (unsigned forms, no assignment at all, assignment to a different entity, a mere authorization to pay that does not transfer the right to sue), or because the insurer timely requested the assignment (or a properly completed one) as verification and the claimant has not supplied it, so the claim is premature/not overdue; or (trial courts before 2007) that the assignment is an essential, non-waivable element the claimant must prove; or, on Article 75 review, upholds an arbitrator's or master arbitrator's ruling that the claimant lacked standing for want of a valid assignment. Result: complaint dismissed, claimant's motion denied, judgment or award for the insurer on that ground. - **Issue of fact**: The court holds that a question of fact exists on an element of the assignment challenge, e.g. whether the plaintiff is the same entity as the assignee named in the form (Damadian MRI in Garden City), whether the assignment was executed or genuine, or whether the insurer timely requested verification of the assignment; neither side obtains judgment on that point. ## Decisions (109) Highest court first, then department, newest first. Each entry: court and date, the category, [central] where the result turns on this question or [also decides], then a one-sentence summary written by a language model from the decision and checked by a second reading. ### Court of Appeals - [Hospital for Joint Diseases v Travelers Prop. Cas. Ins. Co. (2007 NY Slip Op 09067)](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/hospital-for-joint-diseases-v-travelers-prop-cas-ins-co-2007-ny-slip-op-09067/) — Court of Appeals, 2007-11-20 — Defense waived [central]: Held the insurer precluded from contesting the assignment marked signature 'on file' because it neither sought verification nor timely paid or denied, as an assignment defect does not implicate lack of coverage and such a form satisfies any prima facie burden. ### Appellate Division, First Department - [Countrywide Ins. Co. v 563 Grand Med., P.C. (2008 NY Slip Op 03059)](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/countrywide-ins-co-v-563-grand-med-p-c-2008-ny-slip-op-03059/) — Appellate Division, First Department, 2008-04-03 — Defense waived [also decides]: Held in one sentence, citing Hospital for Joint Diseases, that the insurer had waived its objection to the provider-assignee's standing; the judgment was nonetheless reversed because a triable issue existed on medical necessity. ### Appellate Division, Second Department - [Matter of South Nassau Community Hosp. v Avis Budget Group, Inc. (2025 NY Slip Op 05954)](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/matter-of-south-nassau-community-hosp-v-avis-budget-group-inc-2025-ny-slip-op-05954/) — Appellate Division, Second Department, 2025-10-29 — Assignment defense upheld [central]: Upheld as rational, under deferential article 75 review, the master arbitrator's ruling that the hospital lacked standing for want of an assignment of benefits, despite the hospital's argument that the insurer waived the defense by raising it late. - [Matter of Fast Care Med. Diagnostics, PLLC/PV v Government Empls. Ins. Co. (2018 NY Slip Op 03831)](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/matter-of-fast-care-med-diagnostics-pllc-pv-v-government-empls-ins-co-2018ny-slip-op-03831/) — Appellate Division, Second Department, 2018-05-30 — Assignment sufficient [also decides]: Held the master arbitrator's ruling that the assignment, executed by the infant patient and his mother, was ineffective was not based on any requirement in established law or regulations, supporting vacatur. - [Sound Shore Med. Ctr. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. (2013 NY Slip Op 02390)](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/sound-shore-med-ctr-v-new-york-cent-mut-fire-ins-co-2013-ny-slip-op-02390/) — Appellate Division, Second Department, 2013-04-10 — Defense waived [also decides]: Held the claim was not premature: the insurer's only effective verification request, which sought a signed assignment in place of the 'on file' form among other items, was never followed up, so its initial toll expired. - [New York Hosp. Med. Ctr. of Queens v Country Wide Ins. Co. (2011 NY Slip Op 01628)](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/new-york-hosp-med-ctr-of-queens-v-country-wide-ins-co-2011-ny-slip-op01628/) — Appellate Division, Second Department, 2011-03-01 — Defense waived [central]: Held the insurer could not object that the NF-5 and assignment of benefits forms supplied were outdated, because its verification requests sought exactly those January 2004 forms and the hospital provided what was requested. - [Westchester Med. Ctr. v Countrywide Ins. Co. (2007 NY Slip Op 09024)](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/westchester-med-ctr-v-countrywide-ins-co-2007-ny-slip-op-09024/) — Appellate Division, Second Department, 2007-11-13 — Defense waived [also decides]: Held the insurer waived any defenses based on the assignment of benefits forms because it failed to timely object to their completeness or seek verification of the assignments. - [Westchester Med. Ctr. v Safeco Ins. Co. of Am. (2007 NY Slip Op 04484)](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/westchester-med-ctr-v-safeco-ins-co-of-am-2007-ny-slip-op-04484/) — Appellate Division, Second Department, 2007-05-22 — Defense waived [central]: Held the insurer waived its lack-of-standing defense because there was no evidence it timely objected to the completeness of the claim forms or sought verification of the assignor's assignment. - [Hospital for Joint Diseases v Travelers Prop. Cas. Ins. Co. (2006 NY Slip Op 08214)](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/hospital-for-joint-diseases-v-travelers-prop-cas-ins-co-2006-ny-slip-op-08214/) — Appellate Division, Second Department, 2006-11-14 — Defense waived [central]: Held the insurers could not defeat the hospital's summary judgment motion because their failure to timely object to the claim forms or seek verification of the assignment waived any defenses based on them. - [New York & Presbyt. Hosp. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. (2006 NY Slip Op 05336)](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/new-york-presbyt-hosp-v-new-york-cent-mut-fire-ins-co-2006-ny-slip-op-05336/) — Appellate Division, Second Department, 2006-07-05 — Assignment defense upheld [central]: Reversed the judgment after a nonjury trial and dismissed the complaint because the hospitals' trial proof included only unsigned assignment of benefit forms, so they lacked standing. - [Nyack Hosp. v Encompass Ins. Co. (2005 NY Slip Op 08962)](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/nyack-hosp-v-encompass-ins-co-2005-ny-slip-op-08962/) — Appellate Division, Second Department, 2005-11-21 — Defense waived [also decides]: Held the insurer waived any defense based on the lack of a valid assignment because it neither timely objected to the completeness of the claim forms nor sought verification of the assignment. - [Hospital for Joint Diseases v Allstate Ins. Co. (2005 NY Slip Op 06192)](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/hospital-for-joint-diseases-v-allstate-ins-co-2005-ny-slip-op-06192/) — Appellate Division, Second Department, 2005-08-01 — Defense waived [central]: Held the insurer waived any defense based on the assignments because the hospital forms stated the patients' signatures were 'on file' and the insurer neither timely objected to the forms nor sought verification of the assignments. - [Nyack Hosp. v Metropolitan Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. (2005 NY Slip Op 02235)](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/nyack-hosp-v-metropolitan-prop-cas-ins-co-2005-ny-slip-op-02235/) — Appellate Division, Second Department, 2005-03-21 — Defense waived [also decides]: Held the insurer's failure to object to the adequacy of the hospital's claim forms within 10 days waived any defense based on them, including the alleged lack of a valid assignment of benefits. - [New York Hosp. Med. Ctr. of Queens v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. (2004 NY Slip Op 05626)](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/new-york-hosp-med-ctr-of-queens-v-new-york-cent-mut-fire-ins-co-2004-ny-slip-op-05626/) — Appellate Division, Second Department, 2004-06-28 — Defense waived [central]: Rejected the insurer's objections for lack of proof of the assignments because its affidavits failed to establish that it mailed verification requests for the assignments, so it raised no triable issue. ### Appellate Division, Third Department - [LMK Psychological Servs., P.C. v Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. (2006 NY Slip Op 04486)](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/lmk-psychological-servs-p-c-v-liberty-mut-ins-co-2006-ny-slip-op-04486/) — Appellate Division, Third Department, 2006-06-08 — Defense waived [central]: Held the insurer's objection that the assignors' signatures on the assignment forms were not authenticated was waived because it did not request verification of the assignments within the 10-day regulatory period. ### Appellate Term, First Department - [Easy Care Acupuncture, P.C. v ELRAC, Inc. (2017 NY Slip Op 50234(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/easy-care-acupuncture-p-c-v-elrac-inc-2017-ny-slip-op-50234u/) — Appellate Term, First Department, 2017-02-22 — Defense waived [also decides]: Held the insurer waived any objection based on lack of proof of assignment because it never sought verification of the assignments; summary judgment for the provider also rested on untimely denial and an insufficient scope-of-practice defense. - [Tutto Anesthesia v American Country Ins. Co. (2015 NY Slip Op 50738(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/tutto-anesthesia-v-american-country-ins-co-2015-ny-slip-op50738u/) — Appellate Term, First Department, 2015-05-18 — Defense waived [also decides]: Held the insurer waived any objection based on lack of proof of the assignments because it never sought verification of them. - [P.L.P. Acupuncture, P.C. v Travelers Indem. Co. (2008 NY Slip Op 50484(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/p-l-p-acupuncture-p-c-v-travelers-indem-co-2008-ny-slip-op-50484u/) — Appellate Term, First Department, 2008-03-14 — Defense waived [also decides]: Held the insurer waived any objection based on lack of proof of a valid assignment because it never sought verification of the assignment. - [Fair Price Med. Supply, Inc. v St. Paul Travelers Ins. Co. (2007 NY Slip Op 27173)](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/fair-price-med-supply-inc-v-st-paul-travelers-ins-co-2007-ny-slip-op-27173/) — Appellate Term, First Department, 2007-05-04 — Defense waived [central]: Held the insurer waived any objection based on lack of proof of the assignment because it never sought verification of the assignment, so judgment for the provider was proper. - [Laufer v Lumberman's Mut. Cas. Co. (2005 NY Slip Op 51632(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/laufer-v-lumbermans-mut-cas-co-2005-ny-slip-op-51632u/) — Appellate Term, First Department, 2005-10-11 — Defense waived [central]: Held that the insurer's failure to object to the adequacy of the claim form within 10 days of receipt waived any defenses based on alleged technical deficiencies in the assignment of benefits. ### Appellate Term, Second Department - [Beal-Medea Prods., Inc. v Geico Gen. Ins. Co. (2016 NY Slip Op 50594(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/beal-medea-prods-inc-v-geico-gen-ins-co-2016-ny-slip-op50594u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2016-04-08 — Defense waived [central]: Held dismissal at trial for failure to admit the assignment was error, because an executed assignment is not part of the provider's prima facie case and becomes an issue only if the insurer first shows it timely and properly raised it. - [Boris Kleyman Physician, P.C. v IDS Prop. Cas. Ins. Co. (2014 NY Slip Op 51810(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/boris-kleyman-physician-p-c-v-ids-prop-cas-ins-co-2014-ny-slip-op51810u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2014-12-17 — Defense waived [central]: Held the insurer's no-assignment standing objection unpreserved because first raised on appeal, and meritless anyway since the claim forms stated the assignor's signature was 'on file', as in Hospital for Joint Diseases. - [Urban Radiology, P.C. v GEICO Gen. Ins. Co. (2013 NY Slip Op 50850(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/urban-radiology-p-c-v-geico-gen-ins-co-2013-ny-slip-op50850u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2013-05-14 — Defense waived [central]: Held the trial court erred in dismissing for lack of an assignment in evidence because, although the claim forms contained no assignment language, the insurer never timely objected to the forms' completeness or sought verification of the assignment, waiving the defense. - [St. Vincent's Hosp. & Med. Ctr. v American Tr. Ins. Co. (2010 NY Slip Op 52063(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/st-vincents-hosp-med-ctr-v-american-tr-ins-co-2010-ny-slip-op52063u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2010-11-26 — Assignment sufficient [central]: Held the hospital complied with verification requests for NF-5 forms signed by the assignors, marked signature 'on file', by supplying the executed assignments and authorizations, and the insurer's attorney's denial of receipt lacked personal knowledge. - [Golden Age Med. Supply, Inc. v Clarendon Natl. Ins. Co. (2010 NY Slip Op 52010(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/golden-age-med-supply-inc-v-clarendon-natl-ins-co-2010-ny-slip-op52010u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2010-11-19 — Assignment sufficient [also decides]: Rejected the defense that the assignor revoked the assignment in a later stipulation, because 11 NYCRR 65-3.11 (d) bars unilateral revocation after the services were rendered. - [AVA Acupuncture, P.C. v AutoOne Ins. Co. (2010 NY Slip Op 51350(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/ava-acupuncture-p-c-v-autoone-ins-co-2010-ny-slip-op-51350u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2010-07-29 — Defense waived [also decides]: Held the insurer's discovery demand for a copy of the assignment palpably improper because it never sought verification of the assignment nor denied the claim on that ground, so it was precluded from litigating the assignment's validity. - [Speciality Surgical Servs. v Travelers Ins. Co. (2010 NY Slip Op 50715(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/speciality-surgical-servs-v-travelers-ins-co-2010-ny-slip-op-50715u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2010-04-16 — Defense waived [also decides]: Rejected the standing challenge that the assignment named a different entity, because the discrepancy was apparent on the submitted assignment and the insurer neither sought verification nor denied on that ground, so it was precluded. - [St. Vincent Med. Care, P.C. v Country Wide Ins. Co. (2010 NY Slip Op 50488(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/st-vincent-med-care-p-c-v-country-wide-ins-co-2010-ny-slip-op50488u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2010-03-19 — Defense waived [also decides]: Rejected the insurer's argument that the assignment was defective because signed by a minor, holding it waived any such defense by not timely objecting to the form or seeking verification of the assignment. - [Davydov v Progressive Ins. Co. (2009 NY Slip Op 29299)](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/davydov-v-progressive-ins-co-2009-ny-slip-op-29299/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2009-07-09 — Defense waived [central]: Held the insurer precluded from arguing that the assignment ran to the doctor's professional corporation rather than the individual plaintiff, because the defect was apparent on the form and the insurer neither sought verification nor denied on that ground. - [Westchester Neurodiagnostic, P.C. v Allstate Ins. Co. (2009 NY Slip Op 51385(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/westchester-neurodiagnostic-p-c-v-allstate-ins-co-2009-ny-slip-op51385u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2009-06-29 — Assignment sufficient [also decides]: Rejected the insurer's argument that the provider failed to prove the admissibility of the assignment form, holding proof of the assignment is not an element of the provider's prima facie case. - [Nyack Hosp. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. (2008 NY Slip Op 52184(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/nyack-hosp-v-new-york-cent-mut-fire-ins-co-2008-ny-slip-op52184u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2008-11-05 — Defense waived [also decides]: Held the insurer not entitled to verification of the assignment, and the claim not premature, because it requested the assignment more than two months after receiving the hospital facility form that included it. - [Mary Immaculate Hosp. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. (2008 NY Slip Op 52046(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/mary-immaculate-hosp-v-new-york-cent-mut-fire-ins-co-2008-ny-slip-op52046u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2008-10-09 — Assignment defense upheld [central]: Held the claim for one assignor premature and dismissed it, because the insurer proved timely initial and follow-up requests for an executed assignment of benefits form and the hospital never responded. - [Mani Med., P.C. v Eveready Ins. Co. (2008 NY Slip Op 52697(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/mani-med-p-c-v-eveready-ins-co-2008-ny-slip-op-52697u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2008-07-25 — Defense waived [also decides]: Held that any prima facie burden to prove a valid assignment was met by claim forms stating the assignor's signature was on file, because the insurer did not timely seek verification of the assignment. - [L.I. Community Med., P.C. v Allstate Ins. Co. (2008 NY Slip Op 51034(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/l-i-community-med-p-c-v-allstate-ins-co-2008-ny-slip-op-51034u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2008-05-01 — Assignment defense upheld [central]: Upheld as rational, under the deferential article 75 standard, the arbitrator's finding that the assignment ran to an entity different from the petitioner, which therefore lacked standing to recover benefits. - [First Help Acupuncture, P.C. v Progressive Northeastern Ins. Co. (2007 NY Slip Op 51167(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/first-help-acupuncture-p-c-v-progressive-northeastern-ins-co-2007-ny-slip-op-51167u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2007-06-05 — Issue of fact [also decides]: Held the insurer raised an issue of fact on several bills because its representative showed timely denials stating that a prescribed assignment of benefits was not submitted or not properly executed. - [Metroscan Med. Diagnostics, P.C. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co. (2007 NY Slip Op 50500(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/metroscan-med-diagnostics-p-c-v-progressive-cas-ins-co-2007-ny-slip-op-50500u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2007-03-15 — Assignment defense upheld [central]: Held the claim was not overdue and the action premature because the insurer timely requested and followed up for a properly completed assignment and the provider supplied only incomplete assignment forms. - [Vega Chiropractic, P.C. v Eveready Ins. Co. (2007 NY Slip Op 50363(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/vega-chiropractic-p-c-v-eveready-ins-co-2007-ny-slip-op-50363u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2007-02-26 — Assignment sufficient [also decides]: Rejected the insurer's argument that the provider's prima facie case failed for lack of an authenticated assignment, because no statute or regulation requires authentication of the assignor's signature. - [Vitality Chiropractic, P.C. v Kemper Ins. Co. (2006 NY Slip Op 26536)](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/vitality-chiropractic-p-c-v-kemper-ins-co-2006-ny-slip-op-26536/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2006-12-11 — Defense waived [also decides]: Held the insurer's failure to timely object to the completeness of the claim forms or seek verification of the assignments waived any defense based on them. - [Vega Chiropractic, P.C. v Eveready Ins. Co. (2006 NY Slip Op 52239(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/vega-chiropractic-p-c-v-eveready-ins-co-2006-ny-slip-op-52239u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2006-11-02 — Assignment sufficient [also decides]: Rejected the insurer's argument that the plaintiff failed to make a prima facie case without an authenticated assignment, because no statute or regulation requires authentication of the assignor's signature. - [Vega Chiropractic, P.C. v Eveready Ins. Co. (2006 NY Slip Op 52238(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/vega-chiropractic-p-c-v-eveready-ins-co-2006-ny-slip-op-52238u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2006-11-02 — Assignment sufficient [also decides]: Rejected the insurer's argument that the plaintiff failed to make a prima facie case without an authenticated assignment, because no statute or regulation requires authentication of the assignor's signature. - [Pine Hollow Med., P.C. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co. (2006 NY Slip Op 51870(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/pine-hollow-med-p-c-v-progressive-cas-ins-co-2006-ny-slip-op-51870u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2006-09-21 — Defense waived [also decides]: Held the insurer, having received an assignment form and acknowledged the claimant as assignee in its denial, waived any assignment defense by failing to timely object to the form's completeness or seek verification of the assignment. - [A.B. Med. Servs. PLLC v Peerless Ins. Co. (2006 NY Slip Op 26318)](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/a-b-med-servs-pllc-v-peerless-ins-co-2006-ny-slip-op-26318/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2006-07-26 — Defense waived [central]: Held the providers need not establish the assignments' validity for their prima facie case, because the insurer's failure to seek verification of the assignments or allege any deficiency in its denials waived defenses based on them. - [Doshi Diagnostic Imaging Servs. v Progressive Ins. Co. (2006 NY Slip Op 51430(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/doshi-diagnostic-imaging-servs-v-progressive-ins-co-2006-ny-slip-op-51430u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2006-07-17 — Assignment defense upheld [central]: Held benefits not overdue because the insurer timely requested and followed up for an assignment, objected that the NF-AOB supplied lacked the provider's signature, and the claimant never supplied a signed assignment, tolling the insurer's time. - [Bronxborough Med., P.C. v New Hampshire Ins. Co. (2006 NY Slip Op 51354(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/bronxborough-med-p-c-v-new-hampshire-ins-co-2006-ny-slip-op-51354u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2006-07-07 — Defense waived [also decides]: Held the alleged defects in the assignment, along with those in the claim form and supporting affidavit, were waived because the insurer failed to timely seek verification of the assignment or the claim form. - [M.G.M. Psychiatry Care P.C. v Utica Mut. Ins. Co. (2006 NY Slip Op 51286(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/m-g-m-psychiatry-care-p-c-v-utica-mut-ins-co-2006-ny-slip-op-51286u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2006-07-03 — Assignment sufficient [also decides]: Rejected the insurer's objection that the assignment form was not authenticated because lack of authentication is not a cognizable defect, adding that the insurer in any event waived it by not seeking verification or citing it in its denials. - [Ocean Diagnostic Imaging P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (2006 NY Slip Op 51275(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/ocean-diagnostic-imaging-p-c-v-state-farm-mut-auto-ins-co-2006-ny-slip-op-51275u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2006-06-28 — Defense waived [also decides]: Rejected the insurer's lack-of-standing argument based on defective assignment forms because the insurer did not timely object to the completeness of the forms or seek verification of the assignments, waiving any defense based on them. - [Damadian MRI in Canarsie, P.C. v General Assur. Co. (2006 NY Slip Op 51048(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/damadian-mri-in-canarsie-p-c-v-general-assur-co-2006-ny-slip-op-51048u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2006-06-02 — Defense waived [central]: Held the insurer could not overturn the judgment by challenging admission of the assignment forms because it never timely objected to their completeness or sought verification of them under 65-3.5, thereby waiving any defense based on them. - [Dilon Med. Supply Corp. v State Farm Mut. Ins. Co. (2006 NY Slip Op 51344(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/dilon-med-supply-corp-v-state-farm-mut-ins-co-2006-ny-slip-op-51344u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2006-05-25 — Defense waived [also decides]: Held the insurer waived any defense based on the lack of a valid assignment because it neither timely objected to the assignment nor timely requested verification of it. - [Vista Surgical Supplies, Inc. v General Assur. Co. (2006 NY Slip Op 51034(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/vista-surgical-supplies-inc-v-general-assur-co-2006-ny-slip-op-51034u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2006-05-19 — Assignment sufficient [also decides]: Rejected the insurer's argument that the provider failed to make a prima facie case by not authenticating the assignment as lacking merit, though the action was dismissed as premature on unanswered verification requests. - [SZ Med. P.C. v Country-Wide Ins. Co. (2006 NY Slip Op 26194)](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/sz-med-p-c-v-country-wide-ins-co-2006-ny-slip-op-26194/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2006-05-17 — Assignment sufficient [also decides]: Rejected the insurer's objection to the unauthenticated assignor signatures because no statute or regulation requires authentication, adding that its failure to seek verification within 10 days or state the defect in its denials waived it anyway. - [Rigid Med. of Flatbush, P.C. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. (2006 NY Slip Op 50582(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/rigid-med-of-flatbush-p-c-v-new-york-cent-mut-fire-ins-co-2006-ny-slip-op-50582u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2006-04-06 — Defense waived [also decides]: Held the insurer's failure to seek verification of the assignment and to allege any deficiency in it in a timely denial waived any defenses regarding the assignment. - [A.B. Med. Servs. PLLC v Prudential Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. (2006 NY Slip Op 50504(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/a-b-med-servs-pllc-v-prudential-prop-cas-ins-co-2006-ny-slip-op-50504u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2006-03-27 — Defense waived [also decides]: Held the allegedly defective proof of assignments was no ground to deny summary judgment because the insurer neither timely sought verification of the assignments nor specified any deficiency in its denials, waiving the defense. - [Delta Diagnostic Radiology, P.C. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co (2006 NYSlipOp 50491(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/delta-diagnostic-radiology-p-c-v-progressive-cas-ins-co-2006-nyslipop-50491u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2006-03-27 — Assignment sufficient [also decides]: Held the provider need not prove mailing of its assignment form for its prima facie case because its NF-3 stated an assignment was attached and the form was annexed, adding that the insurer waived defects by not raising them in its denial. - [Modern Psychiatric Servs. P.C. v Progressive Ins. Co. (2006 NY Slip Op 50143(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/modern-psychiatric-servs-p-c-v-progressive-ins-co-2006-ny-slip-op-50143u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2006-02-03 — Defense waived [also decides]: Held the insurer, having failed to prove timely mailing of its verification requests, was precluded from raising any deficiency in the assignment. - [Ocean Diagnostic Imaging P.C. v Allstate Ins. Co. (2006 NY Slip Op 50140(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/ocean-diagnostic-imaging-p-c-v-allstate-ins-co-2006-ny-slip-op-50140u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2006-02-03 — Defense waived [also decides]: Held the insurer waived any defense based on the assignments because it never sought verification of them and alleged no deficiency in its denial of claim forms. - [A.B. Med. Servs. PLLC v Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. (2005 NY Slip Op 51902(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/a-b-med-servs-pllc-v-liberty-mut-ins-co-2005-ny-slip-op-51902u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2005-11-21 — Assignment sufficient [also decides]: Rejected the insurer's objection to the unauthenticated assignor signatures because no statute or regulation requires authentication, adding that its failure to seek verification or cite the defect in its denials waived the defense anyway. - [A.B. Med. Servs. PLLC v American Tr. Ins. Co. (2005 NY Slip Op 51893(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/a-b-med-servs-pllc-v-american-tr-ins-co-2005-ny-slip-op-51893u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2005-11-04 — Defense waived [central]: Held the insurer waived any defense based on the assignments because it did not object to their completeness within 10 days of receipt, so the provider was entitled to partial summary judgment. - [A.B. Med. Servs. PLLC v Encompass Ins. (2005 NY Slip Op 51892(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/a-b-med-servs-pllc-v-encompass-ins-2005-ny-slip-op-51892u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2005-11-04 — Defense waived [also decides]: Agreed with the lower court that the insurer's failure to seek verification of the assignments or to state any deficiency in its denial forms waived any defense based on the assignments. - [Careplus Med. Supply Inc. v Allstate Ins. Co. (2005 NYSlipOp 51526(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/careplus-med-supply-inc-v-allstate-ins-co-2005-nyslipop-51526u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2005-09-20 — Defense waived [also decides]: Held the insurer waived its defective-assignment defense by failing to seek verification of the assignments or to state any deficiency in them in its claim denial forms. - [Careplus Med. Supply Inc. v Allstate Ins. Co. (2005 NYSlipOp 51525(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/careplus-med-supply-inc-v-allstate-ins-co-2005-nyslipop-51525u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2005-09-20 — Defense waived [also decides]: Held the insurer waived its defective-assignment defense by failing to seek verification of the assignments or to state any deficiency in them in its claim denial forms. - [Careplus Med. Supply, Inc v Allstate Indem. Co. (2005 NY Slip Op 51527(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/careplus-med-supply-inc-v-allstate-indem-co-2005-ny-slip-op-51527u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2005-09-20 — Defense waived [also decides]: Held that the insurer waived its defense of defective assignments by failing to seek verification of the assignments or to allege any deficiency in them in its denial forms. - [A.B. Med. Servs. PLLC v American Tr. Ins. Co. (2005 NYSlipOp 51316(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/a-b-med-servs-pllc-v-american-tr-ins-co-2005-nyslipop-51316u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2005-08-17 — Assignment sufficient [also decides]: Held that an unauthenticated assignor signature is not a defect because no statute or regulation requires authentication, adding that the insurer's failure to seek verification or cite the defect in its denials waived the objection anyway. - [Medwide Med. Supply Inc. v Country-Wide Ins. Co. (2005 NYSlipOp 51078(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/medwide-med-supply-inc-v-country-wide-ins-co-2005-nyslipop-51078u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2005-07-07 — Defense waived [also decides]: Held the insurer waived its challenge to the assignment form, even though the dissent described the form as unsigned, because it neither sought verification of the assignment's validity in time nor cited facial deficiencies in its denials. - [Rockaway Blvd. Med. P.C. v Progressive Ins. (2005 NY Slip Op 25278)](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/rockaway-blvd-med-p-c-v-progressive-ins-2005-ny-slip-op-25278/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2005-07-07 — Assignment sufficient [also decides]: Rejected the insurer's objection that no authenticated assignment was produced because no statute or regulation requires authentication of the assignor's signature, adding that failure to seek verification or object in the denials waived it anyway. - [S & M Supply Inc. v State-Wide Ins. Co. (2005 NYSlipOp 51046(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/s-m-supply-inc-v-state-wide-ins-co-2005-nyslipop-51046u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2005-07-06 — Assignment sufficient [central]: Reversed a denial resting on supposed absence of proof of assignment because the supplier submitted combined receipt/assignment forms the insurer did not dispute; any defect required verification, and the authentication objection was unpreserved and meritless. - [Summit Psychological, P.C. v General Assur. Co. (2005 NY Slip Op 25263)](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/summit-psychological-p-c-v-general-assur-co-2005-ny-slip-op-25263/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2005-06-28 — Assignment sufficient [also decides]: Rejected the insurer's challenge to the provider's prima facie case because no statute or regulation requires authentication of the assignor's signature, adding that failure to seek verification or object in a timely denial would waive it anyway. - [Struhl v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co. (2005 NYSlipOp 50864(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/struhl-v-progressive-cas-ins-co-2005-nyslipop-50864u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2005-06-03 — Defense waived [also decides]: Held the insurer's alleged defects in the proof of assignment were precluded because it failed to deny the claim within 30 days and its verification requests did not toll that period. - [GPM Chiropractic, P.C. v State Farm Mut. Ins. Co (2005 NYSlipOp 50861(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/gpm-chiropractic-p-c-v-state-farm-mut-ins-co-2005-nyslipop-50861u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2005-06-03 — Defense waived [also decides]: Held the insurer's untimely denial precluded it from raising any deficiency in the assignments. - [Ocean Diagnostic Imaging P.C. v Travelers Prop. Cas. Corp. (2005 NY Slip Op 50790(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/ocean-diagnostic-imaging-p-c-v-travelers-prop-cas-corp-2005-ny-slip-op-50790u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2005-05-23 — Defense waived [also decides]: Held that the insurer's failure to seek verification of the assignments or to allege any deficiency in them in its denial waived any defense based on the assignments. - [A.B. Med. Servs. PLLC v Electric Ins. Co. (2005 NYSlipOp 50542(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/a-b-med-servs-pllc-v-electric-ins-co-2005-nyslipop-50542u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2005-04-13 — Assignment sufficient [also decides]: Held the lower court erred to the extent it relied on lack of authentication of the assignments, since no statute or regulation requires authentication, adding that the insurer waived the objection by not seeking verification or stating it in its denials. - [Capio Med., P.C. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co. (2005 NYSlipOp 50526(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/capio-med-p-c-v-progressive-cas-ins-co-2005-nyslipop-50526u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2005-04-13 — Assignment sufficient [also decides]: Rejected the insurer's authentication objection because no statute or regulation requires authentication of the assignor's signature, adding that the insurer waived it by not seeking verification of the assignments or noting any deficiency in its denials. - [A.B. Med. Servs. PLLC v Prudential Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. (2005 NY Slip Op 50076(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/a-b-med-servs-pllc-v-prudential-prop-cas-ins-co-2005-ny-slip-op-50076u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2005-01-27 — Assignment sufficient [also decides]: Held the lower court erred insofar as it found issues on the assignments' validity, because lack of authentication of the assignor's signature is no defect absent a regulatory requirement, and alternatively the insurer waived it by not seeking verification. - [Amaze Med. Supply Inc. v Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co. (2005 NY Slip Op 50084(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/amaze-med-supply-inc-v-lumbermens-mut-cas-co-2005-ny-slip-op-50084u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2005-01-27 — Assignment sufficient [also decides]: Held that any denial resting on lack of authentication of the assignments was erroneous because no statute or regulation requires authentication, and alternatively that the insurer waived the objection by not seeking verification or raising it in its denials. - [A.B. Med. Servs. PLLC v Prudential Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. (2005 NY Slip Op 25032)](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/a-b-med-servs-pllc-v-prudential-prop-cas-ins-co-2005-ny-slip-op-25032/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2005-01-20 — Assignment sufficient [also decides]: Rejected the lower court's ground that the assignor's signatures were unauthenticated because no statute or regulation requires authentication, adding that the insurer's failure to seek verification or object in its denials waived it. - [A.B. Med. Servs. PLLC v USAA Cas. Ins. Co. (2004 NY Slip Op 51682(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/a-b-med-servs-pllc-v-usaa-cas-ins-co-2004-ny-slip-op-51682u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2004-12-22 — Assignment sufficient [also decides]: Held the regulations do not require authentication of the assignor's signature on the assignment form, and in any event the insurer waived other assignment defects by not alleging them in its denial. - [A.B. Med. Servs. PLLC v Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. (2004 NY Slip Op 24506)](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/a-b-med-servs-pllc-v-nationwide-mut-ins-co-2004-ny-slip-op-24506/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2004-12-10 — Assignment sufficient [also decides]: Held the regulations do not require authentication of the assignor's signature, so submission of a conforming assignment suffices, and the insurer waived assignment defenses by not seeking verification or citing them in its denial. - [Diagnostic Rehab. Med. Serv. P.C. v Travelers Indem. Co. (2004 NY Slip Op 24505)](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/diagnostic-rehab-med-serv-p-c-v-travelers-indem-co-2004-ny-slip-op-24505/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2004-12-10 — Defense waived [central]: Held that the insurer waived any defense based on an assignment form naming no assignee because it neither sought additional verification nor alleged any deficiency in the assignment in its denial of claim form. - [King'S Med. Supply v Allstate Ins. Co. (2004 NY Slip Op 50280(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/kings-med-supply-v-allstate-ins-co-2004-ny-slip-op-50280u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2004-04-09 — Assignment sufficient [also decides]: Noted that the assignments were proper and the supplier had standing to sue. - [Damadian Mri In Garden City v Windsor Group Ins. (2004 NY Slip Op 50266(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/damadian-mri-in-garden-city-v-windsor-group-ins-2004-ny-slip-op-50266u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2004-04-09 — Issue of fact [central]: Held the provider failed to make a prima facie case because the assignment named only "Damadian MRI," which sufficed to resist dismissal but raised a question of fact whether the plaintiff was the named assignee. - [Damadian Mri In Garden City v Windsor Group Ins. (2004 NY Slip Op 50262(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/damadian-mri-in-garden-city-v-windsor-group-ins-2004-ny-slip-op-50262u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2004-04-09 — Issue of fact [central]: Held the provider failed to make a prima facie case because the assignment named only "Damadian MRI," which sufficed to resist dismissal but raised a question of fact whether the plaintiff was the named assignee. ### Trial courts in the First Department - [Chiropractic Neurodiagnostics, P.C. v Travelers Indem. Co. (2006 NY Slip Op 26049)](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/chiropractic-neurodiagnostics-p-c-v-travelers-indem-co-2006-ny-slip-op-26049/) — Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County, 2006-02-08 — Defense waived [central]: Held that the insurer waived defects in the assignment form (no named assignee, no accident or execution date) because it did not object within 10 days of receipt, all the defects being technical. - [Fair Price Med. Supply, Inc. v St. Paul Travelers Ins. Co. (2006 NY Slip Op 52598(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/fair-price-med-supply-inc-v-st-paul-travelers-ins-co-2006-ny-slip-op-52598u/) — Civil Court of the City of New York, Bronx County, 2006-01-05 — Defense waived [central]: Held the plaintiff's failure to introduce an assignment at trial did not defeat its claim because the insurer, which conceded raising no objection, waived assignment deficiencies by not objecting to the claim form within 10 days. - [T & G Med. Supplies, Inc. v National Grange Mut. Ins. Co. (2005 NY Slip Op 25357)](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/t-g-med-supplies-inc-v-national-grange-mut-ins-co-2005-ny-slip-op-25357/) — Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County, 2005-08-30 — Assignment defense upheld [central]: Held the provider lacked standing and dismissed the action because the NF-AOB was undated and named no assignee, and standing via a properly executed assignment cannot be waived despite the insurer's denial omitting the defect. - [Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co. v Inwood Hill Med., P.C. (2005 NY Slip Op 51101(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/lumbermens-mut-cas-co-v-inwood-hill-med-p-c-2005-ny-slip-op-51101u/) — Supreme Court, New York County, 2005-07-12 — Assignment defense upheld [central]: Held that providers claiming as assignees must proffer complete, properly executed assignments to have standing, and dismissed the counterclaims for assignors as to whom no complete valid assignment was submitted, strictly construing the regulations. - [T&G Med. Supplies, Inc. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (2005 NY Slip Op 50636(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/tg-med-supplies-inc-v-state-farm-mut-auto-ins-co-2005-ny-slip-op-50636u/) — Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County, 2005-02-04 — Assignment defense upheld [central]: Dismissed the supplier's action for lack of standing because its unauthenticated assignment named no assignee, accident or assignment date and the assignor never received the supplies, holding an effective assignment a non-waivable element the assignee must prove. ### Trial courts in the Second Department - [Top Choice Pharm. Corp. v Merchants Mut. Ins. Co. (2022 NY Slip Op 50867(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/top-choice-pharm-corp-v-merchants-mut-ins-co-2022-ny-slip-op50867u/) — Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County, 2022-09-14 — Defense waived [also decides]: Rejected the insurer's standing defense that a minor had signed the assignment because the insurer never timely sought verification of the assignment or objected to it, which waived any defect. - [Montvale Surgical Ctr., LLC. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (2020 NY Slip Op 50106(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/montvale-surgical-ctr-llc-v-state-farm-mut-auto-ins-co-2020-ny-slip-op50106u/) — District Court of Suffolk County, Third District, 2020-01-20 — Assignment defense upheld [also decides]: Denied the provider's summary judgment motion in part because its assignment of benefits form referred to a different accident date than the subject accident, so the necessary assignment element was not shown. - [Brownsville Advance Med., P.C. v Country-Wide Ins. Co. (2011 NY Slip Op 52255(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/brownsville-advance-med-p-c-v-country-wide-ins-co-2011-ny-slip-op52255u/) — District Court of Nassau County, First District, 2011-12-19 — Assignment sufficient [also decides]: Rejected the insurer's prematurity defense based on an unanswered verification demand that included a signed assignment, because the assignment and claim form on file were in the required form and the repetitive demand stated no reason or defect. - [Globe Surgical Supply v Allstate Ins. Co. (2011 NY Slip Op 50884(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/globe-surgical-supply-v-allstate-ins-co-2011-ny-slip-op-50884u/) — Supreme Court, Nassau County, 2011-04-18 — Defense waived [also decides]: Dismissed the insurer's affirmative defense that the assignments were invalid or non-existent because an assignment defect is not a lack-of-coverage defense and the insurer had not asserted it within 30 days of the claims. - [New York Hosp. Med. Ctr. of Queens v Countrywide Ins. Co. (2009 NY Slip Op 50764(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/new-york-hosp-med-ctr-of-queens-v-countrywide-ins-co-2009-ny-slip-op50764u/) — Supreme Court, Nassau County, 2009-03-17 — Defense waived [also decides]: Held that the hospital forms stating the assignor's signature was 'on file' sufficed because the insurer's objection to the forms and its verification requests for revised assignment forms were untimely, so the defense was waived. - [Friendly Physician, P.C. v Country-Wide Ins. Co. (2007 NY Slip Op 50747(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/friendly-physician-p-c-v-country-wide-ins-co-2007-ny-slip-op-50747u/) — Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County, 2007-04-06 — Assignment sufficient [central]: Held the assignor's letter asking to drop all claims did not revoke the assignment, because 65-3.11 (d) bars unilateral revocation after services are rendered and no notice to the assignee was shown. - [DWP Pain Free Med. P.C. v Progressive Northeastern Ins. Co. (2006 NY Slip Op 26531)](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/dwp-pain-free-med-p-c-v-progressive-northeastern-ins-co-2006-ny-slip-op-26531/) — District Court of Suffolk County, Third District, 2006-12-07 — Assignment defense upheld [central]: Held the insurer properly requested a hard-copy, properly executed assignment because it need not accept electronic signatures and an 'on file' provider signature is insufficient; since the provider never responded, the claim was premature and dismissed. - [Elite Med. Care, P.C. v Travelers Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. (2006 NY Slip Op 51397(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/elite-med-care-p-c-v-travelers-prop-cas-ins-co-2006-ny-slip-op-51397u/) — Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County, 2006-07-13 — Assignment defense upheld [central]: Dismissed the complaint after trial because the claimant offered no evidence of a properly executed assignment, an element it must prove, and waiver rulings about defective forms did not cover a total absence of proof of assignment. - [Multiquest, P.L.L.C. v Allstate Ins. Co. (2005 NY Slip Op 52069(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/multiquest-p-l-l-c-v-allstate-ins-co-2005-ny-slip-op-52069u/) — Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County, 2005-12-19 — Defense waived [also decides]: Rejected the insurer's defective-assignment-form defense because a defense premised on a defect in the assignment form is waived when not preserved in a timely denial of claim, and none was issued. - [City Wide Social Work & Psychological Servs., P.L.L.C. v General Assur. Co. (2005 NY Slip Op 51197(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/city-wide-social-work-psychological-servs-p-l-l-c-v-general-assur-co-2005-ny-slip-op-51197u/) — Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County, 2005-07-27 — Defense waived [also decides]: Held that the insurer waived any objection to the provider's assignment form by not requesting verification of it within the prescribed period, so the alleged defects did not defeat the prima facie case. - [Doshi Diagnostic Imaging Servs. v Progressive Ins. Co. (2005 NY Slip Op 50416(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/doshi-diagnostic-imaging-servs-v-progressive-ins-co-2005-ny-slip-op-50416u/) — District Court of Nassau County, 2005-03-29 — Assignment defense upheld [central]: Dismissed the complaint as premature because the insurer timely requested a properly executed assignment form and the resubmitted NF-AOB lacked the provider's signature, so the verification remained outstanding and the time to pay or deny never began. - [Westchester Med. Ctr. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co. (2005 NY Slip Op 50348(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/westchester-med-ctr-v-progressive-cas-ins-co-2005-ny-slip-op-50348u/) — District Court of Nassau County, First District, 2005-03-21 — Defense waived [also decides]: Rejected the insurer's objection that the assignment bore only 'signature on file' and lacked required revocation language, because the insurer waived any assignment defects by failing to timely object or request verification of them. - [Vital Points Acupuncture, P.C. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. (2005 NY Slip Op 50267(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/vital-points-acupuncture-p-c-v-new-york-cent-mut-fire-ins-co-2005-ny-slip-op-50267u/) — Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County, 2005-03-03 — Defense waived [also decides]: Held the insurer's objections to the proof of claim and assignment form waived because it did not request verification of either within the prescribed period. - [Amaze Med. Supply Inc. v Travelers Prop. Cas. Corp. (2005 NY Slip Op 50201(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/amaze-med-supply-inc-v-travelers-prop-cas-corp-2005-ny-slip-op-50201u/) — Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County, 2005-02-22 — Assignment sufficient [also decides]: Rejected the insurer's objection that the provider offered no admissible proof authenticating the assignor's signature because the regulations do not require authentication of that signature. - [Metro Med. Diagnostics, P.C. v Allstate Ins. Co. (2005 NY Slip Op 50327(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/metro-med-diagnostics-p-c-v-allstate-ins-co-2005-ny-slip-op-50327u/) — Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County, 2005-02-17 — Defense waived [also decides]: Held the insurer waived its objection that the assignment forms were not authenticated because it denied every claim only on a pending investigation and never raised the assignment defect in its denials. - [Boai Zhong Yi Acupuncture Servs. PC v General Assur. Ins Co. (2005 NY Slip Op 50329(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/boai-zhong-yi-acupuncture-servs-pc-v-general-assur-ins-co-2005-ny-slip-op-50329u/) — Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County, 2005-02-09 — Assignment sufficient [also decides]: Rejected the insurer's objection that the assignment of benefits was not authenticated, holding that a provider need not authenticate the assignment to make out its prima facie case; judgment rested on untimely or improper denials. - [Siegel v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co. (2004 NY Slip Op 24532)](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/siegel-v-progressive-cas-ins-co-2004-ny-slip-op-24532/) — Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County, 2004-12-21 — Assignment defense upheld [central]: Denied summary judgment because no assignment was submitted, holding an assignment an essential element of the claim whose absence cannot be waived by the insurer's failure to object in its denial. - [Ultimate Med. Supplies v Lancer Ins. Co. (2004 NY Slip Op 51860(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/ultimate-med-supplies-v-lancer-ins-co-2004-ny-slip-op-51860u/) — Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County, 2004-12-17 — Assignment sufficient [also decides]: Rejected the insurer's claim that the supplier failed to prove an assignment, because a witness saw the assignor sign it and the insurer consented to its admission as an assignment, establishing the prima facie case. - [Richard A. Hellander, M.D., P.C. v State Farm Ins. Co. (2004 NY Slip Op 24468)](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/richard-a-hellander-m-d-p-c-v-state-farm-ins-co-2004-ny-slip-op-24468/) — Civil Court of the City of New York, Richmond County, 2004-11-22 — Assignment sufficient [also decides]: Rejected the insurer's trial objection that the assignor's signature was unauthenticated, holding the insurer bore the burden on standing and offered no contrary evidence, and that office-procedure testimony circumstantially established the assignment's propriety. - [A.B. Med. Servs. PLLC v Farm Family Cas. Ins. Co. (2004 NY Slip Op 24346)](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/a-b-med-servs-pllc-v-farm-family-cas-ins-co-2004-ny-slip-op-24346/) — Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County, 2004-09-14 — Assignment sufficient [central]: Rejected the objection that the assignment was undated and its signature unauthenticated, holding neither defect defeats the prima facie case, and alternatively that the insurer waived it by not seeking verification or the original assignment. - [Palladium Car & Limo Serv. Corp. v Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. (2004 NY Slip Op 50987(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/palladium-car-limo-serv-corp-v-liberty-mut-ins-co-2004-ny-slip-op-50987u/) — Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County, 2004-07-22 — Assignment defense upheld [central]: Denied summary judgment because the transportation provider's form only authorized direct payment to it and did not assign the patient's right to sue, so it was not a valid assignment and no prima facie case was shown. - [Rizz Mgt. Inc. v Kemper Ins. Co. (2004 NY Slip Op 50723(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/rizz-mgt-inc-v-kemper-ins-co-2004-ny-slip-op-50723u/) — Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County, 2004-06-30 — Assignment defense upheld [central]: Denied the provider's summary judgment motion because its papers contained no assignment, a necessary part of complete proof of claim, and the late-served assignment was a nullity and unauthenticated by anyone with knowledge. - [Advanced Med. Rehabilitation, P.C. v Travelers Prop. Cas. Ins. Co. (2004 NY Slip Op 50141(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/advanced-med-rehabilitation-p-c-v-travelers-prop-cas-ins-co-2004-ny-slip-op-50141u/) — Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County, 2004-03-16 — Assignment defense upheld [also decides]: Dismissed after trial because the undated assignment was inadmissible, the witness neither having seen the assignor sign nor knowing his signature, and proof of assignment being an essential element; the claim's mailing was also unproven. ### Trial courts in the Fourth Department - [Proscan Radiology of Buffalo v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co. (2006 NY Slip Op 51242(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/proscan-radiology-of-buffalo-v-progressive-cas-ins-co-2006-ny-slip-op-51242u/) — City Court of Buffalo, 2006-06-27 — Defense waived [also decides]: Held the insurer could not argue that the physician claimant was not the named assignee because it listed him on the claim, did not question the assignment in its denial, and so waived the objection.