[*1]

Second Department, July 29, 2015

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

D’Amato & Lynch, LLP, New York City (Robert D. Lang, David A. Boyar, and Roy T. Caplinger of counsel), for appellant.

Kral Clerkin Redmond Ryan Perry & Van Etten, LLP, Melville (Leonard Porcelli of counsel), for respondent.

In the fall of 2006, a taxi insured by the petitioner was involved in a collision with a horse. The rider of the horse was seriously injured, and the petitioner paid him nearly $60,000 in no-fault benefits. The petitioner then sought reimbursement of the no-fault benefits that it had paid to the rider by filing a demand for mandatory arbitration against the respondent, American Bankers Insurance Company of Florida (hereinafter{**132 AD3d at 42} American Bankers), the carrier that provided commercial liability coverage to the stables where the horse was boarded. The arbitrator denied the petitioner’s claim, finding, in essence, that the petitioner could not recoup payment from American Bankers because American Bankers was not a motor vehicle insurer subject to the mandatory arbitration provisions of Insurance Law § 5105 and its implementing regulations. We conclude that the arbitrator had the authority to determine this threshold issue, and that the determination had a rational basis.

The facts underlying the commencement of this proceeding are not in dispute. On October 8, 2006, Jared Johnson was riding a horse named Romeo on a path alongside of North Conduit Avenue in Queens when Romeo suddenly bolted into the roadway, and collided with a taxi owned and operated by Parjit Singh. Johnson was thrown from the horse, and suffered serious injuries, including skull fractures and a broken leg. On the date of the accident, Singh’s taxi was insured by the petitioner, Fiduciary Insurance Company. Johnson filed a claim with the petitioner seeking to recover first-party benefits, more commonly known as “no-fault” benefits, under Insurance Law § 5103. The petitioner ultimately paid Johnson a total of $59,906.97 in no-fault benefits.

Romeo was owned by Julius Stanton, who had no insurance coverage in effect for the horse on the date of the accident. Stanton boarded Romeo at Cedar Lane Stables (hereinafter Cedar Lane), a facility owned by the City of New York, and licensed to the Federation of Black Cowboys, [*2]Inc. (hereinafter the Cowboys). Cedar Lane and the Cowboys (hereinafter together the insureds) were insured by American Bankers under a commercial liability policy that provided no-fault coverage only for accidents arising from the use of “mobile equipment,” a category that includes various types of machinery not generally used for travel on public roads. More specifically, the policy afforded supplemental coverage to the insureds for “all sums for which an insured is legally liable for bodily injury or property damages resulting” from its mobile equipment, including no-fault insurance coverage required by any insurance law. The subject accident, however, did not involve mobile equipment owned by the insureds, but, rather, a horse that the insureds merely boarded at their stables.

Following the accident, Johnson commenced an action to recover damages for personal injuries against several parties{**132 AD3d at 43} including the City, the Cowboys, and Singh. In an order dated November 30, 2009, the Supreme Court awarded summary judgment to the City, the Cowboys, and Singh dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them, based upon the doctrine of primary assumption of risk.

On October 19, 2012, nearly two years after Johnson’s action was dismissed against the insureds, the petitioner sought reimbursement of the no-fault benefits that it had paid him by filing a demand for mandatory arbitration against American Bankers pursuant to Insurance Law § 5105. That statute allows an insurer that has paid no-fault benefits to obtain mandatory arbitration to recoup its loss from the insurer of the party actually at fault for the accident.^[FN*] In its arbitration demand, the petitioner asserted that its insured, Singh, was not at fault for the accident because he had done nothing to cause the horse to “attack” his taxi, and that the insureds had negligently created “an extremely hazardous situation” by permitting the horse to travel upon “a riding path so close to a roadway without any barricade.” American Bankers did not file a response to the demand or otherwise participate in the arbitration.

In an award dated December 12, 2012, the arbitrator ruled that the petitioner could not obtain reimbursement from American Bankers because it had “failed to provide substantiation that [American Bankers] is [a] motor vehicle insurer that could be held liable under Section 5105 of Insurance Law.” The arbitrator added that, therefore, “[t]he proper forum would have been litigation.”

About three months later, on March 11, 2013, the petitioner commenced the instant proceeding pursuant to CPLR 7511 (b) to vacate the arbitration award, contending that the arbitrator erred in sua sponte raising an affirmative defense on behalf of American Bankers, which had elected not to appear in the arbitration proceeding. The petitioner further argued that, in any event, American Bankers was an insurer subject to mandatory arbitration of claims against it arising from an accident involving a motor vehicle for hire.

In opposition to the petition, American Bankers asserted that the arbitrator’s determination had a rational basis, and{**132 AD3d at 44} cross-petitioned pursuant to CPLR 7511 (e) to confirm the award.

In the order appealed from, the Supreme Court denied the petition to vacate the arbitration award, granted the cross petition, and confirmed the award. The court began its analysis by noting that

“[t]here are two types of no-fault disputes between insurers that are subject to mandatory arbitration: loss transfer and priority of payment (see Insurance Law § 5105; 11 NYCRR 65-3.12; 11 NYCRR 65-4.11). The arbitration procedures established pursuant to section 5105 of the Insurance Law apply to disputes over priority of payment among insurers who are liable for the payment of first-party benefits (see Insurance Law § 5105 [a] [b]; 11 NYCRR [65-]3.12 [b]).”

The court then rejected the petitioner’s argument that the arbitrator had improperly raised and disposed of an affirmative defense by determining that American Bankers was not a motor vehicle insurer liable for the payment of no-fault benefits. Rather, the arbitrator’s determination was that [*3]the petitioner had failed to meet “a threshold part” of its “required showing as the applicant seeking reimbursement under Insurance Law § 5105 and 11 NYCRR [65-]3.12 (b)” that American Bankers was an “insurer” within the meaning of the applicable statute and regulations and, thus, subject to mandatory arbitration of another insurance carrier’s claims against it.

[1] Contrary to the petitioner’s contention, the arbitrator had the authority to rule on the issue of whether the controversy was subject to mandatory arbitration under Insurance Law § 5105 and its implementing regulations. An arbitrator’s authority generally “extends to only those issues that are actually presented by the parties” (Matter of Joan Hansen & Co., Inc. v Everlast World’s Boxing Headquarters Corp., 13 NY3d 168, 173 [2009]). Therefore, an arbitrator is precluded from identifying and considering an affirmative defense that is not pleaded by a party to the arbitration. Here, however, the issue before the arbitrator cannot be characterized as an affirmative defense, such as lack of coverage (see New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v Amica Mut. Ins. Co., 162 AD2d 1009 [1990]). Nor was the issue whether the petitioner satisfied a condition precedent to recovery in a loss-transfer proceeding (see Matter of Allstate Ins. Co. v New York Petroleum Assn. Compensation {**132 AD3d at 45}Trust, 104 AD3d 682 [2013]). Rather, the issue before the arbitrator was the threshold issue of whether American Bankers was an “insurer” subject to the mandatory arbitration procedures of Insurance Law § 5105 and 11 NYCRR 65-3.12 (b) (see Hunter v OOIDA Risk Retention Group, Inc., 79 AD3d 1, 9 [2010]). Furthermore, the fact that American Bankers elected not to participate in the arbitration did not divest the arbitrator of the authority to determine, in the first instance, whether American Bankers was an “insurer” within the meaning of the subject statute and regulation. An arbitrator may hear and determine a controversy upon the evidence produced, notwithstanding the failure of a party to appear (see CPLR 7506 [c]; Matter of Whale Sec. Co. [Godfrey], 271 AD2d 226, 227 [2000]), and since American Bankers did not appear at the arbitration, it did not affirmatively waive the issue of whether it was an “insurer” subject to arbitration by participating in the arbitration and raising other issues to the exclusion of that issue (cf. Matter of United Fedn. of Teachers, Local 2, AFT, AFL-CIO v Board of Educ. of City School Dist. of City of N.Y., 1 NY3d 72, 78 [2003]; Matter of Emerald Claims Mgt. for Ullico Cas. Ins. Co. v A. Cent. Ins. Co., 121 AD3d 481, 482-483 [2014]; Matter of Nelson v Queens Surface Corp., 283 AD2d 577 [2001]).

As noted by the Court of Appeals, a party may not be bound to arbitrate a dispute by mere inaction (see Matter of Commerce & Indus. Ins. Co. v Nester, 90 NY2d 255, 262 [1997]). Therefore, American Bankers’ failure to move to stay arbitration pursuant to CPLR 7503 did not render this dispute arbitrable, where, as here, no agreement to arbitrate was ever made (see id.; Matter of Matarasso [Continental Cas. Co.], 56 NY2d 264, 267 [1982]; Matter of Allstate Ins. Co. v Marke, 121 AD3d 1107 [2014]), and where, as will be discussed, American Bankers was not an insurer subject to the statutory requirement to submit to mandatory arbitration.

[2] Turning to the merits, in this proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 to vacate the arbitrator’s award, our judicial review is limited. Since the petitioner sought arbitration pursuant to the mandatory arbitration provision of Insurance Law § 5105, the award may be considered to be one arising from a statutory obligation to arbitrate, notwithstanding the arbitrator’s ultimate determination that American Bankers was not subject to arbitration. Thus, we treat the award as one rendered after compulsory arbitration, and give the petitioner the benefit of affording “closer judicial scrutiny of the arbitrator’s {**132 AD3d at 46}determination under CPLR 7511 (b)” than would be warranted in reviewing an award made after a consensual arbitration (Matter of Motor Veh. Acc. Indem. Corp. v Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 89 NY2d 214, 223 [1996]; see Matter of Public Serv. Mut. Ins. Co. v Fiduciary Ins. Co. of Am., 123 AD3d 933, 934 [2014]; Matter of Philadelphia Ins. Co. [Utica Natl. Ins. Group], 97 AD3d 1153 [2012]). “To be upheld, an award in a compulsory arbitration proceeding must have evidentiary support and cannot be arbitrary and capricious” (Matter of Motor Veh. Acc. Indem. Corp. v Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 89 NY2d at 223 [citations omitted]; see Matter of Santer v Board of Educ. of E. Meadow Union Free Sch. Dist., 23 NY3d 251, 261 [2014]; Matter of Public Serv. Mut. Ins. Co. v Fiduciary Ins. Co. of Am., 123 AD3d 933, 934 [2014]; Matter of State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v City of Yonkers, 21 AD3d 1110, 1111 [2005]). Moreover, with respect to determinations of law, the applicable standard in mandatory no-fault arbitrations is whether “any reasonable hypothesis can be found to support the questioned interpretation” (Matter of Shand [Aetna Ins. Co.], 74 AD2d 442, 454 [1980]; see Matter of Motor Veh. Acc. Indem. Corp. v Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 89 NY2d at 224; Matter of Scottsdale Ins. Co. v Motor Veh. Acc. Indem. Corp., 107 AD3d 1003, 1003-1004 [2013]; Matter of State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co., 18 AD3d 762, 763 [2005]; Matter of Hanover Ins. Co. v State Farm [*4]Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 226 AD2d 533, 534 [1996]; Matter of Empire Mut. Ins. Co. v Jones, 151 AD2d 754 [1989]; Massapequa Gen. Hosp. v Travelers Ins. Co., 104 AD2d 638, 640 [1984]). Keeping our limited scope of judicial review in mind, and upon an application of the relevant law, we conclude that the Supreme Court properly determined that the arbitrator’s award was supported by a “reasonable hypothesis” and was not arbitrary and capricious (see Matter of Motor Veh. Acc. Indem. Corp. v Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 89 NY2d at 224; Matter of Progressive N. Ins. Co. v Sentry Ins. A Mut. Co., 51 AD3d 800, 802 [2008]; Matter of State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co., 18 AD3d at 763).

At issue here is the applicability to this controversy of certain provisions of the Comprehensive Automobile Insurance Reparations Act (see L 1973, ch 13), commonly known as the No-Fault Law. Pursuant to the No-Fault Law, every automobile owner must carry automobile insurance covering “basic economic loss” resulting from the use or operation of the vehicle in New York State (Insurance Law § 5102 [a]; see Pommells v Perez, 4 NY3d {**132 AD3d at 47}566, 570-571 [2005]). The No-Fault Law is “aimed at ensuring ‘prompt compensation for losses incurred by accident victims without regard to fault or negligence’ ” (Viviane Etienne Med. Care, P.C. v Country-Wide Ins. Co., 25 NY3d 498, 504-505 [2015], quoting Matter of Medical Socy. of State of N.Y. v Serio, 100 NY2d 854, 860 [2003]), and alleviating unnecessary burdens on the courts by limiting litigation with respect to such claims (see Pommells v Perez, 4 NY3d at 570-571).

As relevant to this appeal, in certain limited circumstances an insurance carrier that has paid first-party no-fault benefits to an accident victim is afforded the remedy of mandatory intercompany arbitration to recoup those benefits, through a “loss transfer,” from the insurer of the party at fault for the accident (see Insurance Law § 5105; Matter of Emerald Claims Mgt. for Ullico Cas. Ins. Co. v A. Cent. Ins. Co., 121 AD3d at 482; Matter of Progressive Northeastern Ins. Co. [New York State Ins. Fund], 56 AD3d 1111, 1112 [2008]; Matter of State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v City of Yonkers, 21 AD3d at 1111). “The No-Fault Automobile Insurance Law defines ‘first party benefits’ as ‘payments to reimburse a person for basic economic loss on account of personal injury arising out of the use or operation of a motor vehicle’ ” (Matter of Johnson v Buffalo & Erie County Private Indus. Council, 84 NY2d 13, 18 [1994], quoting Insurance Law § 5102 [b]). “Basic economic loss” includes necessary expenses incurred by an accident victim for medical treatment, and lost wages (Insurance Law § 5102 [a] [1] [i]; [2]).

Insurance Law § 5105 states, in pertinent part:

“(a) Any insurer liable for the payment of first party benefits to or on behalf of a covered person and any compensation provider paying benefits in lieu of first party benefits . . . has the right to recover the amount paid from the insurer of any other covered person to the extent that such other covered person would have been liable, but for the provisions of this article, to pay damages in an action at law. In any case, the right to recover exists only if at least one of the motor vehicles involved is a motor vehicle weighing more than six thousand five hundred pounds unloaded or is a motor vehicle used principally for the transportation of persons or property for hire. . . .

“(b) The sole remedy of any insurer or compensation provider to recover on a claim arising pursuant to subsection (a) hereof, shall be the submission of the controversy to mandatory arbitration pursuant to procedures promulgated or approved by the superintendent.”

In 1977, the statute was amended to its present form, which restricts recovery to accidents involving vehicles for hire or vehicles weighing more than 6,500 pounds (see Hunter v OOIDA Risk Retention Group, Inc., 79 AD3d at 10). The scope of recovery was restricted by the 1977 amendment to address concerns that intercompany loss-transfer arbitration proceedings “contribute to overhead costs and delays under the no-fault system and are inconsistent with the basic objective of the no-fault system, which is to eliminate costly investigations and factual determinations concerning fault” (Governor’s Program Bill Mem at 7-8, Bill Jacket, L 1977, ch 892; see Hunter v OOIDA Risk Retention Group, Inc., 79 AD3d at 10).

Insurance Law § 5105 serves to mitigate the effect of placing the entire burden “of loss on the first-party insurer, even where its insured was not at fault” (Hunter v OOIDA Risk Retention Group, Inc., 79 AD3d at 9), and allows insurers to recover from each other the first-party [*5]no-fault benefits paid to their insureds, allocated on the basis of their relative fault (see id.; Matter of City of Syracuse v Utica Mut. Ins. Co., 61 NY2d 691, 693 [1984]). Since, generally, where a vehicle for hire is involved in an underlying accident, “mandatory arbitration is the sole remedy regarding disputes between insurers over responsibility for payment of first-party benefits,” no action at law lies in such a situation to adjudicate a dispute between insurers over liability for first-party no-fault benefits (State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 150 AD2d 976, 977 [1989]; see Matter of Philadelphia Ins. Co. [Utica Natl. Ins. Group], 97 AD3d 1153, 1157-1158 [2012]), or disputes over priority of payment of first-party benefits (see Matter of Pacific Ins. Co. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 150 AD2d 455, 456 [1989]).

The term “insurer” is defined in Insurance Law article 51 as an “insurance company or self-insurer, as the case may be, which provides the financial security required by article six or eight of the vehicle and traffic law” (Insurance Law § 5102 [g] [emphasis added]). In addition, the regulations implementing the No-Fault Law state that they apply to “mandatory arbitration of controversies between insurers, pursuant to the provisions{**132 AD3d at 49} of section 5105 of the Insurance Law, and shall apply to insurers, self-insurers and compensation providers” (11 NYCRR 65-4.11 [a] [1]). Insurers are defined in those regulations as both insurers and self-insurers “as those terms are defined in . . . Part [65 of Title 11 of the NYCRR] and article 51 of the Insurance Law; the Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corporation (MVAIC); any company providing insurance pursuant to section 5103 (g) of the Insurance Law; and compensation providers as defined in section 5102 (1) of the Insurance Law” (11 NYCRR 65-4.11 [a] [1]).

Insurance Law § 5105 (b), which provides that the “sole remedy of any insurer or compensation provider to recover” first-party benefits on a no-fault claim “shall be the submission of the controversy to mandatory arbitration” (see Eagle Ins. Co. v ELRAC, Inc., 291 AD2d 272, 273 [2002]; Matter of Pacific Ins. Co. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 150 AD2d at 456), is binding only upon insurers or self-insurers, “as those terms are defined in . . . Part [65 of Title 11 of the NYCRR] and article 51 of the Insurance Law” (11 NYCRR 65-4.1; see 65-4.11 [a] [1], [5]), and not to insurance carriers which do not meet those definitions (see Aetna Health Plans v Hanover Ins. Co., 116 AD3d 538 [2014], lv granted 24 NY3d 912 [2015]). Thus, not all insurance carriers that insure those actually involved in an accident are subject to the mandatory arbitration provisions of Insurance Law § 5105 (b) and its implementing regulations. Furthermore, these provisions do “not apply where New York’s no-fault insurance law does not prevent the tortfeasor from being held liable to pay damages in an action at law” (Hunter v OOIDA Risk Retention Group, Inc., 79 AD3d at 12).

Here, the American Bankers’ policy did not provide no-fault insurance coverage for the type of accident underlying this dispute. Moreover, American Bankers did not insure a person, vehicle, or animal involved in the underlying accident, but only the stables at which the animal was boarded. Accordingly, American Bankers cannot be deemed to be an “insurer” as that term is defined by Insurance Law article 51 and the pertinent regulations.

Moreover, Insurance Law § 5105 does not apply here because New York’s No-Fault Law would not preclude American Bankers’ insureds from being held liable to pay damages in an action at law. The decision of this Court in Matter of Purex Indus. v Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. (110 AD2d 67 [1985]) does not support a contrary result. In that case, this Court ruled that the{**132 AD3d at 50} petitioner was “the self-insured owner of the vehicle involved in the accident” (id. at 69) and, thus, satisfied the statutory definition of an “insurer” that is “subject to mandatory arbitration for adjusting the payment of no-fault benefits between insurers” (id. at 68), since, “[b]ut for the No-Fault Law, petitioner would be liable as an ‘insurer’ to [the respondent’s] insured in an action at law” (id. at 70). Here, on the other hand, the No-Fault Law would not preclude American Bankers’ insureds from being held liable in an action at law (see Hunter v OOIDA Risk Retention Group, Inc., 79 AD3d at 12).

Since American Bankers did not meet the definition of insurer or self-insurer under the No-Fault Law and the regulations promulgated thereunder (see Matter of Purex Indus. v Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 110 AD2d at 68-70), the determination of the arbitrator that the claims against it were not subject to compulsory arbitration was supported by a reasonable hypothesis. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the petition to vacate the arbitrator’s award, and properly granted the cross petition to confirm the award.

The order is affirmed.

Skelos, J.P., Dickerson and Miller, JJ., concur.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Footnotes

Footnote *:However, Insurance Law § 5105 only permits recoupment of no-fault benefits for accidents involving vehicles for hire, such as the taxi insured by the petitioner in this case, or vehicles weighing more than 6,500 pounds, such as trucks.

[*1]

The Rybak Firm, PLLC, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Damin J. Toell of counsel), for appellants.

McCormack & Mattei, P.C., Garden City, N.Y. (Rosemary E. Ross and Nicole Holler of counsel), for respondent.

In an action, inter alia, for a judgment declaring that the plaintiff is not obligated to pay certain no-fault claims submitted to it by the defendants, the defendants Active Care Medical Supply Corp. and Ultimate Health Products, Inc., appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Phelan, J.), entered October 21, 2013, as, upon an order of the same court entered August 7, 2013, among other things, granting those branches of the plaintiff’s motion which were for summary judgment on the complaint insofar as asserted against them, is in favor of the plaintiff and against them declaring that the plaintiff has no duty to provide coverage to them and that the policy issued by the plaintiff to the defendant Linwood Bates III is null and void with respect to them.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, those branches of the plaintiff’s motion which were for summary judgment on the complaint insofar as asserted against the defendants Active Care Medical Supply Corp. and Ultimate Health Products, Inc., are denied, the order is modified accordingly, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Nassau County, for further proceedings consistent herewith.

The plaintiff commenced this action for a judgment declaring, inter alia, that it is not obligated to pay no-fault claims submitted to it by the defendants Active Care Medical Supply Corp. and Ultimate Health Products, Inc. (hereinafter together the appellants), in connection with three automobile collisions involving an automobile owned by the defendant Linwood Bates III (hereinafter Bates) and insured by the plaintiff. The plaintiff moved for summary judgment on the complaint, arguing, among other things, that it is not required to pay no-fault claims to certain medical providers in connection with the three collisions on the ground that the collisions were intentional and staged in furtherance of a fraud scheme. The Supreme Court granted the plaintiff’s motion.

“[A]n intentional and staged collision caused in the furtherance of an insurance fraud scheme is not a covered accident under a policy of insurance” (Matter of Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v Goddard, 29 AD3d 698, 699 [2006]; see Matter of Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v Young, 124 AD3d 663, 664 [2015]).

[*2] In support of its motion for summary judgment on the complaint, the plaintiff failed to establish its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. The plaintiff asserted that several defendants failed to attend their scheduled depositions, which was purportedly a breach of Bates’s insurance contract with the plaintiff. The plaintiff, however, failed to submit evidence from someone with personal knowledge of the mailings of the deposition requests (see Stephen Fogel Psychological, P.C. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 35 AD3d 720, 721 [2006]; New York & Presbyt. Hosp. v Allstate Ins. Co., 29 AD3d 547, 547-548 [2006]; cf. Hertz Corp. v Active Care Med. Supply Corp., 124 AD3d 411 [2015]). In addition, the uncertified police accident reports submitted by the plaintiff were not admissible (see Adobea v Junel, 114 AD3d 818, 820 [2014]; Cheul Soo Kang v Violante, 60 AD3d 991 [2009]; Gagliano v Vaccaro, 97 AD2d 430, 431 [1983]). Further, the unsigned and unsworn deposition transcript of the defendant Miguel Ortiz was inadmissible (see CPLR 3116; Rosenblatt v St. George Health & Racquetball Assoc., LLC, 119 AD3d 45, 51 [2014]; McDonald v Mauss, 38 AD3d 727, 728 [2007]). The plaintiff submitted an affidavit of its investigator, but the investigator relied, mostly, on inadmissible evidence, and lacked personal knowledge of the facts surrounding the three collisions. Accordingly, the plaintiff failed to establish, prima facie, through admissible evidence, that the subject collisions were deliberately caused to fraudulently obtain insurance benefits (cf. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v Laguerre, 305 AD2d 490, 491 [2003]).

Since the plaintiff failed to demonstrate its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, the Supreme Court should have denied those branches of its motion which were for summary judgment on the complaint insofar as asserted against the appellants, and we need not consider the sufficiency of the appellants’ opposition papers (see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853 [1985]).

The appellants’ remaining contentions have been rendered academic in light of our determination. Skelos, J.P., Dillon, Duffy and LaSalle, JJ., concur.

[*1]

Khavinson & Associates, P.C., Brooklyn, N.Y. (Thomas T. Kranidas of counsel), for appellant.

Bruno, Gerbino & Soriano, LLP, Melville, N.Y. (Mitchell L. Kaufman of counsel), for respondent.

In an action, in effect, pursuant to Insurance Law § 5106 (c) for a de novo determination of a claim for no-fault insurance benefits, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Bunyan, J.), dated October 30, 2013, which granted the defendant’s motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (2) to dismiss the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The complaint, in effect, sought a de novo determination of the plaintiff’s no-fault claim pursuant to Insurance Law § 5106 (c). “The statute permits an insurer or a claimant to institute a court action to adjudicate the dispute de novo where the master arbitrator’s award is $5,000 or greater” (Green v Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. Trust, 16 AD3d 457, 457 [2005]). Here, the master arbitrator, by vacating the arbitrator’s award in its entirety, effectively made no monetary award, and, because the master arbitrator’s award was less than $5,000, neither party is entitled to maintain a court action to adjudicate the dispute de novo (see id.; General Acc. Fire & Life Ins. Co. v Avlonitis, 156 AD2d 424, 424 [1989]; Matter of Sansiviero v Royal Globe Ins. Co., 109 AD2d 840, 842 [1985]). Skelos, J.P., Balkin, Chambers and Miller, JJ., concur.

[*1]

Burke, Gordon, Conway & Loccisano, White Plains (Philip J. Dillon of counsel), for appellants.

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Fernando Tapia, J.), entered September 4, 2014, which, to the extent appealed from, denied plaintiffs’ motion for a default judgment seeking a declaration that they were not obligated to pay defendant for the submitted claims at issue, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the motion granted, and it is declared that plaintiffs are not obligated to pay defendant for the claims at issue.

Plaintiffs are no-fault automobile insurers in New York State. Defendant is a provider of durable medical equipment in New York City. Defendant provides such equipment to claimants under plaintiffs’ policies. Plaintiffs came to suspect that defendant was over-billing them for the equipment. Accordingly, as was their right under the policy and the relevant regulations (11 NYCRR 65-1.1 et seq.), plaintiffs requested an examination under oath (EUO) of defendant in order to verify the billings.

Defendant never appeared for the scheduled EUOs. Plaintiffs then commenced this declaratory judgment action. Defendant never answered or appeared. Plaintiffs then moved for a default judgment. Defendant failed to oppose the motion. The IAS court denied plaintiffs’ motion for a default judgment, concluding that plaintiffs had not submitted sufficient proof of mailing the letters notifying defendant of the scheduled EUOs. We note that defendant has not submitted opposition to the instant appeal.

We reverse. The affirmation of plaintiffs’ counsel submitted in support of plaintiffs’ motion for default clearly set forth the mailing procedures to defendant. Indeed, counsel represented, under penalty of perjury, that he personally verified the mailing process for every EUO letter sent. This was adequate proof that the EUO letters were mailed to defendant (see e.g. Olmeur Med., P.C. v Nationwide Gen. Ins. Co., 41 Misc 3d 143[A], 2013 NY Slip Op 52031[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2013]; Longevity Med. Supply, Inc. v IDS Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 44 Misc 3d 137[A], 2014 NY Slip Op 51244[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2014]). Concur—Tom, J.P., Andrias, Feinman, Gische and Kapnick, JJ.

[*1]

Law Office of Jason Tenenbaum, P.C., Garden City (Jason Tenenbaum of counsel), for plaintiff-appellant.

Appeal from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Onondaga County (Deborah H. Karalunas, J.), entered April 24, 2014. The order and judgment, among other things, denied that part of plaintiff’s motion for leave to enter a default judgment against defendants Bushra Naz, Cliffside Park Imaging & Diagnostic Center and Kimba Medical Supply, LLC.

It is hereby ordered that the order and judgment so appealed from is unanimously modified on the law by granting that part of the motion for leave to enter a default judgment against defendant Cliffside Park Imaging & Diagnostic Center and as modified the order and judgment is affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Plaintiff appeals from an order and judgment that, inter alia, denied its motion pursuant to CPLR 3215 for leave to enter a default judgment against defendants Bushra Naz, Cliffside Park Imaging & Diagnostic Center (Cliffside), and Kimba Medical Supply, LLC (Kimba). Defendants Naz and Fatima Tahir made claims for no-fault benefits arising from injuries they allegedly sustained in an automobile accident covered by an insurance policy issued to plaintiff’s policyholder. Naz and Tahir assigned their rights to collect no-fault benefits to certain medical providers, including Cliffside and Kimba, each of which made claims for services rendered to Naz and Tahir as a result of the alleged accident. Plaintiff disclaimed coverage based on the failure of Naz and Tahir to provide timely written notice of the accident pursuant to the insurance policy, and thereafter commenced this action seeking a declaration that there is no coverage. Plaintiff subsequently moved for leave to enter a default judgment against each defendant on the ground that the summons and verified complaint had been properly served and defendants did not timely serve an answer or otherwise appear in the action. Supreme Court denied the motion with respect to Naz, Cliffside, and Kimba, and otherwise granted the motion.

“On a motion for leave to enter a default judgment pursuant to CPLR 3215, the movant is required to submit proof of service of the summons and complaint, proof of the facts constituting its claim, and proof of the defaulting party’s default in answering or appearing” (Atlantic Cas. Ins. Co. v RJNJ Servs., Inc., 89 AD3d 649, 651 [2011]; see CPLR 3215 [f]). Here, plaintiff submitted sufficient proof of the facts constituting its claim through the affidavit of a claims representative establishing that Tahir and Naz failed to satisfy the notice requirement of the insurance policy, which constitutes a failure to comply with a condition precedent and vitiates the contract as a matter of law (see generally New York & Presbyt. Hosp. v Country-Wide Ins. Co., 17 NY3d 586, 592-593 [2011]; Great Canal Realty Corp. v Seneca Ins. Co., Inc., 5 NY3d 742, 743 [2005]; Matter of Progressive Northeastern Ins. Co. [Heath], 41 AD3d 1321, 1322 [2007]). Plaintiff also submitted proof of default in the form of “an affirmation from its attorney regarding . . . defendant[s’] default in appearing and answering” (599 Ralph Ave. Dev., LLC v 799 Sterling Inc., 34 AD3d 726, 726 [2006]).

[*2] We further conclude, however, that plaintiff submitted sufficient proof of service of process, the remaining required element of proof, only with respect to Cliffside, a corporation, and thus the court erred in denying plaintiff’s motion to that extent. We therefore modify the order and judgment accordingly. Pursuant to CPLR 311 (a), “personal service on a corporation may be accomplished by, inter alia, delivering the summons ‘to an officer, director, managing or general agent, or cashier or assistant cashier or to any other agent authorized by appointment or by law to receive service’ ” (Rosario v NES Med. Servs. of N.Y., P.C., 105 AD3d 831, 832 [2013]). Here, “[t]he process server’s affidavit, which stated that the corporate defendant was personally served by delivering a copy of the summons and complaint to its ‘[authorized] agent’ and provided a description of that person, constituted prima facie evidence of proper service pursuant to CPLR 311 (a) (1)” (McIntyre v Emanuel Church of God In Christ, Inc., 37 AD3d 562, 562 [2007]; see Miterko v Peaslee, 80 AD3d 736, 737 [2011]; see generally Halas v Dick’s Sporting Goods, 105 AD3d 1411, 1413-1414 [2013]).

Contrary to plaintiff’s contention, the court properly denied its motion with respect to Naz, who was allegedly served by the “nail and mail” method of service. CPLR 308 (4) allows that method of service only “when service pursuant to CPLR 308 (1) and (2) cannot be made with due diligence” (Austin v Tri-County Mem. Hosp., 39 AD3d 1223, 1224 [2007]) and, although a process server’s affidavit of service ordinarily constitutes prima facie evidence of proper service, here the process server’s affidavit submitted by plaintiff fails to demonstrate the requisite due diligence (see D’Alesandro v Many, 137 AD2d 484, 484 [1988]; see generally Matter of El Greco Socy. of Visual Arts, Inc. v Diamantidis, 47 AD3d 929, 929-930 [2008]). The affidavit failed to indicate whether there was an attempt to effectuate service at Naz’s actual “dwelling place or usual place of abode” (CPLR 308 [4]), and there is no indication that the process server made genuine inquiries to ascertain Naz’s actual residence or place of employment (see Prudence v Wright, 94 AD3d 1073, 1074 [2012]; Earle v Valente, 302 AD2d 353, 353-354 [2003]).

We also reject plaintiff’s contention that the court erred in denying its motion with respect to Kimba, a limited liability company. Plaintiff alleged that Kimba was served pursuant to Limited Liability Company Law § 304. That statute is substantively identical to Business Corporation Law § 307, and both statutes apply to foreign business entities not authorized to do business in New York. We conclude that, just as strict compliance with the procedures set forth in Business Corporation Law § 307 is required pursuant to Flick v Stewart-Warner Corp. (76 NY2d 50, 54-55, 57 [1990], rearg denied 76 NY2d 846 [1990]), strict compliance is likewise required for the procedures set forth in Limited Liability Company Law § 304 (see Elzofri v American Express Co., 29 Misc 3d 898, 901 [2010]). Here, plaintiff failed to establish that it strictly complied with the filing requirements of Limited Liability Company Law § 304 (e). Present—Smith, J.P., Peradotto, Carni, Valentino and Whalen, JJ.

[*1]

The Rybak Firm, PLLC, Brooklyn (Damin J. Toell of counsel), for appellants.

The Law Office of Jason Tenenbaum, P.C., Garden City (Jason Tenenbaum of counsel), for respondent.

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (John A. Barone, J.), entered July 12, 2013, which, to the extent appealed from, declared that defendants-appellants were not entitled to no-fault benefits as a result of a motor vehicle accident due to the claimant’s failure to appear for scheduled examinations under oath (EUO), unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the underlying motion for summary judgment denied, and the judgment vacated.

The reason for the EUO request is a fact essential to justify opposition to plaintiff’s summary judgment motion (see American Tr. Ins. Co. v Curry, 45 Misc 3d 171, 174-175 [Sup Ct, NY County 2013]), and such fact is exclusively within the knowledge and control of the movant. Further discovery on plaintiff’s handling of the claim so as to determine whether, inter alia, the EUOs were timely and properly requested is also essential to justify opposition. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Renwick, Manzanet-Daniels and Clark, JJ.

[*1]

The Rybak Firm, PLLC, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Damin J. Toell of counsel), for appellant.

McCormack & Mattei, P.C., Garden City, N.Y. (John E. McCormack and Kevin Mattei of counsel), for respondents.

In an action for a judgment declaring that the plaintiffs are not obligated to provide insurance coverage for any of the no-fault claims submitted to it by the defendant, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Marber, J.), entered May 8, 2013, which granted the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment on the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment on the complaint is denied.

The defendant allegedly provides durable medical equipment (hereinafter DME) and supplies to persons who are involved in motor vehicle accidents in New York State. The defendant, upon the assignment by the injured persons of no-fault insurance benefits, submitted bills to the plaintiffs seeking reimbursement for the DME provided to the injured persons. State regulation 11 NYCRR 65-1.1 and the applicable insurance policies provided that, for each of the claims submitted by the defendant for reimbursement, upon the plaintiffs’ request, the eligible insured person or that person’s assignee or representative shall: (1) execute, under oath, written proof of the claim, and (2), as may reasonably be required, submit to examinations under oath (hereinafter EUOs) by any person named by the plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs launched an investigation into the defendant’s billing practices in an attempt to verify the documented cost of the DME. The plaintiffs alleged that their investigation could not confirm the defendant’s existence at the claimed location provided on its billing statements. Furthermore, the plaintiffs alleged that the defendant routinely billed under miscellaneous codes for DME despite the fact that all such DME items had legitimate codes that should have been utilized for billing purposes, and that the defendant failed to submit any wholesale supply invoices or any documentation identifying the wholesale company it utilized so as to substantiate its documented costs.

In order to investigate these issues, the plaintiffs requested that the defendant submit [*2]to EUOs and advised that compliance was a condition precedent to coverage. They also made verification requests for purchase receipts, cancelled checks, wholesale invoices, information regarding the name, model, manufacture, serial number, and age of the DME, and the physician referral for the DME. The plaintiffs alleged that none of the information requested for purposes of claim verification was received, and the defendant did not appear for the scheduled EUOs. As a result, the plaintiffs issued denials of the defendant’s claims on the ground that the defendant violated policy conditions, i.e., the defendant failed to provide the requested information and to appear for the EUOs.

The plaintiffs commenced this action for a judgment declaring that they are not obligated to provide insurance coverage for any of the no-fault claims submitted to it by the defendant on the ground that the defendant failed to comply with conditions precedent to reimbursement under the no-fault laws and regulations and insurance laws of this state. After the defendant interposed its answer, the plaintiffs successfully moved for summary judgment on the complaint declaring that they are not obligated to provide insurance coverage for any of the defendant’s claims.

The defendant contends that the plaintiffs failed to establish, prima facie, that the denials of claims were timely and properly mailed to it. Generally, “proof that an item was properly mailed gives rise to a rebuttable presumption that the item was received by the addressee” (Viviane Etienne Med. Care, P.C. v Country-Wide Ins. Co., 114 AD3d 33, 46 [2013] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Matter of Rodriguez v Wing, 251 AD2d 335, 336 [1998]). “ ’The presumption may be created by either proof of actual mailing or proof of a standard office practice or procedure designed to ensure that items are properly addressed and mailed’ ” (New York & Presbyt. Hosp. v Allstate Ins. Co., 29 AD3d 547, 547 [2006], quoting Residential Holding Corp. v Scottsdale Ins. Co., 286 AD2d 679, 680 [2001]). However, in order for the presumption to arise, office practice must be geared so as to ensure the likelihood that a denial of claim is always properly addressed and mailed (see Nassau Ins. Co. v Murray, 46 NY2d 828, 830 [1978]). “Denial of receipt by the insured[ ], standing alone, is insufficient to rebut the presumption” (id. at 829-830).

Here, the plaintiffs failed to establish, prima facie, that they timely and properly mailed the denial of claim forms to the defendant. The affidavit of Joseph M. Andre, the Medical Claims Representative assigned to this matter, asserted that for denials mailed after August 17, 2010, as is relevant herein, all items were mailed through an automated system, and explained how documents were identified. However, Andre did not state, in his affidavit, how the envelopes were addressed so as to ensure that the address was correct or whether the envelope was addressed by the automated system or by an employee. He also did not state how and when the envelopes, once sealed, weighed, and affixed with postage using the automated system, were transferred to the care and custody of the United States Postal Service or some other carrier or messenger service to be delivered. Therefore, Andre’s affidavit was insufficient to establish, as a matter of law, that the denial of claim forms were timely and properly mailed to the defendant (see Westchester Med. Ctr. v Countrywide Ins. Co., 45 AD3d 676, 676-677 [2007]; Matter of Government Empls. Ins. Co. [Hartford Ins. Co.], 112 AD2d 226, 228 [1985]; cf. Hospital for Joint Diseases v Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 284 AD2d 374 [2001]). Since the plaintiffs failed to establish their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the issue of their timely and proper denial of coverage, summary judgment should have been denied regardless of the sufficiency of the defendant’s opposition (see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853 [1985]; Stephen Fogel Psychological, P.C. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 35 AD3d 720, 721 [2006]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court erred in granting the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment on the complaint declaring that they are not obligated to provide insurance coverage for any of the defendant’s claims.

In light of our determination, the defendant’s remaining contentions have been rendered academic. Mastro, J.P., Chambers, Austin and Miller, JJ., concur.

[*1]

Marshall & Marshall, PLLC, Jericho (Jeffrey D. Kadushin of counsel), for appellant.

Dwyer & Taglia, New York (Joshua T. Reece of counsel), for respondent.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Cynthia S. Kern, J.), entered February 14, 2014, which, upon granting reargument, vacated the amended order, same court and Justice, entered June 6, 2013, confirming an arbitration award in favor of petitioner and denying respondent’s cross petition seeking to vacate the arbitration award, and granted the cross petition, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Respondent made a prima facie showing that the offending vehicle in this no-fault arbitration was insured by Global Liberty Insurance of New York, by submitting a Department of Motor Vehicles expansion, indicating that Global had insured the vehicle subsequent to respondent’s coverage (see Matter of Eagle Ins. Co. v Kapelevich, 307 AD2d 927 [2d Dept 2003], lv denied 1 NY3d 503 [2003]; Matter of State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v Youngblood, 270 AD2d 493 [2d Dept 2000]). By operation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 313 (1) (a), the subsequent coverage terminated respondent’s coverage of the same vehicle as of the effective date and hour of Global’s coverage, irrespective of whether respondent had otherwise complied with the cancellation requirements of the Vehicle and Traffic Law (see Employers Commercial Union Ins. Co. of N.Y. v Firemen’s Fund Ins. Co., 45 NY2d 608, 611 [1978]). Thus, it was arbitrary and capricious for the arbitrator to find that respondent was the insurer of the vehicle at the time of the accident because it failed to demonstrate that it had properly cancelled its policy. The [*2]arbitration award was also in excess of the arbitrator’s authority, where it awarded coverage when none existed (cf. Countrywide Ins. Co. v Sawh, 272 AD2d 245 [1st Dept 2000]; Matter of State Farm Ins. Co. v Credle, 228 AD2d 191 [1st Dept 1996]). Concur—Friedman, J.P., Renwick, Moskowitz, Richter and Clark, JJ.

Decided on March 3, 2015
Tom, J.P., Friedman, Renwick, Manzanet-Daniels, Feinman, JJ.

The Law Office of Jason Tenenbaum, P.C., Garden City (Jason Tenenbaum of counsel), for appellant.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Peter H. Moulton, J.), entered July 2, 2014, which denied the petition seeking to vacate the determination of the Master Arbitrator, dated November 6, 2013, affirming the award of the lower arbitrator in this no-fault arbitration, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the petition granted, the arbitration award vacated, and the matter remanded for a new arbitration hearing before a different arbitrator.

The no-fault arbitrator gave no weight to an independent medical examination (IME) report, prepared by a chiropractor and submitted by petitioner, because it was not notarized pursuant to CPLR 2106. The Master Arbitrator, in reviewing the award, deferred to the no-fault arbitrator’s determination of the weight to be given to the evidence, as did the IAS court.

We find that the no-fault arbitrator’s decision to adhere, with strict conformity, to the evidentiary rule set forth in CPLR 2106, although such conformity is not required (see 11 NYCRR § 65-4.5[o] [1] [“The arbitrator shall be the judge of the relevance and materiality of the evidence offered and strict conformity to legal rules of evidence shall not be necessary.”], was arbitrary. Accordingly, the award must be vacated (see In re Petrofsky [Allstate Ins. Co.] , 54 NY2d 207, 211 [1981]). We note that since no substantive determination regarding the weight of the IME report was ever made, the Master Arbitrator and the IAS court erred in deferring to the no-fault arbitrator’s determination.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER

OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: MARCH 3, 2015

CLERK

[*1]

Mura & Storm, PLLC, Buffalo, N.Y. (Roy A. Mura of counsel), for appellant.

Gregory W. Bagen, Brewster, N.Y., for respondent.

In an action to recover no-fault benefits under a policy of automobile insurance, the defendant appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Putnam County (Nicolai, J.), entered August 16, 2010, which, after a nonjury trial, is in favor of the plaintiff and against it in the principal sum of $210,587.30, comprising $72,000 in principal arrears and $138,587.30 in accrued compound interest. Justice Rivera has been substituted for former Justice Angiolillo, Justice Skelos has been substituted for former Justice Belen, and Justice Dillon has been substituted for former Justice Lott (see 22 NYCRR 670.1 [c]).

Ordered that the judgment is modified, on the law, by deleting the provision thereof awarding the plaintiff compound interest in the sum of $138,587.30; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Putnam County, for further proceedings in accordance herewith, and the entry of an appropriate amended judgment thereafter.

On August 9, 2004, Sharon Heidei, also known as Sharon Rollman (hereinafter the decedent) was injured in an automobile accident. On November 13, 2004, the decedent filed a claim with the defendant, Hereford Insurance Company, to recover for basic economic loss and additional personal injury protection benefits. The defendant thereafter disclaimed coverage. On October 17, 2008, the decedent commenced this action, seeking to recover those benefits. On August 16, 2010, after a nonjury trial, the Supreme Court entered a judgment in favor of the decedent and against the defendant. The defendant appeals.

On October 28, 2011, approximately one month after oral argument on this appeal was heard, the decedent died, and the matter was stayed by operation of CPLR 1021, pending substitution of the decedent’s personal representative. In 2012, the defendant petitioned the Surrogate’s Court, Putnam County, to appoint an administrator of the decedent’s estate. On July 9, 2014, the Surrogate’s Court granted the defendant’s petition, and appointed Putnam County Commissioner of Finance William J. Carlin, Jr., as the administrator of the decedent’s estate. By decision and order dated November 21, 2014, this Court granted the defendant’s motion to substitute Carlin as the respondent in place of the decedent, and lifted the stay. Pursuant to the terms of that order, the appeal was subsequently deemed to have been submitted on the original briefs.

Since three of the four justices who heard oral argument were no longer on the bench [*2]when the stay was lifted, three other justices of this Court have been substituted for them (see 22 NYCRR 670.1 [c]).

In connection with policies of automobile insurance, Insurance Law § 5102 (d) defines “basic economic loss” as up to $50,000 per person for combined expenses incurred by a covered person as a consequence of an automobile accident for medical, hospital, surgical, dental, and similar charges, loss of earnings, and other reasonable and necessary expenses. Insurance Law § 5103 (a) mandates that all automobile insurance policies written in New York provide for such coverage, commonly known as no-fault coverage. The defendant’s contention that, in light of the nature of the underlying accident, the plaintiff was not a covered person under the no-fault provisions of the subject automobile insurance policy is not properly before this Court, since the defendant is raising it for the first time on appeal (see NYU Hosp. for Joint Diseases v Country Wide Ins. Co., 84 AD3d 1043 [2011]; KPSD Mineola, Inc. v Jahn, 57 AD3d 853 [2008]; Triantafillopoulos v Sala Corp., 39 AD3d 740 [2007]). Moreover, this defense does not raise a pure question of law apparent on the face of the record that could not have been avoided if raised at the proper juncture (see NYU Hosp. for Joint Diseases v Country Wide Ins. Co., 84 AD3d 1043 [2011]; KPSD Mineola, Inc. v Jahn, 57 AD3d 853 [2008]; Triantafillopoulos v Sala Corp., 39 AD3d 740 [2007]). Accordingly, we do not disturb so much of the judgment as, in effect, awarded the plaintiff $50,000 in unpaid basic no-fault benefits.

The automobile insurance policy issued by the defendant also provided optional additional personal injury protection, with limits of $150,000, for covered persons who sustained extended economic loss as a consequence of an automobile accident. This coverage is commonly known as excess no-fault coverage. The defendant failed to preserve for appellate review its contention that the plaintiff was ineligible for coverage under the additional personal injury protection provisions of the subject policy since, at trial, it made no reference to the governing insurance regulations, nor did it request that the Supreme Court take judicial notice thereof (see CPLR 4511 [b]; cf. Matter of Damian M., 41 AD3d 600 [2007]; Matter of Olympia Victoria R., 261 AD2d 191 [1999]). The defendant’s contention on appeal that the plaintiff was ineligible for excess no-fault coverage does not raise a pure question of law that could not have been avoided if raised at the proper juncture (see NYU Hosp. for Joint Diseases v Country Wide Ins. Co., 84 AD3d 1043 [2011]; KPSD Mineola, Inc. v Jahn, 57 AD3d 853 [2008]; Triantafillopoulos v Sala Corp., 39 AD3d 740 [2007]; cf. Block v Magee, 146 AD2d 730, 732-733 [1989]). Accordingly, we do not disturb so much of the judgment as, in effect, awarded the plaintiff $22,000 in unpaid excess no-fault benefits.

Although the defendant also failed to raise before the Supreme Court its contention that the court erred in applying compound interest accruing at 2% per month to the unpaid no-fault benefits (see CPLR 4017; cf. Corsi v Town of Bedford, 58 AD3d 225, 228 [2008]), we review this issue on appeal because it presents a pure question of law that could not have been avoided if brought to the Supreme Court’s attention at the proper juncture (see Mount Sinai Hosp. v Country Wide Ins. Co., 81 AD3d 700, 701 [2011]; Block v Magee, 146 AD2d at 732-733). The Supreme Court erred in awarding compound interest, since the pertinent New York insurance regulations provide for the accrual of simple interest on improperly withheld no-fault benefits at a rate of 2% per month (see 11 NYCRR 65-3.9 [a]; Insurance Law § 5106 [a]; Matter of Medical Socy. of State of N.Y. v Serio, 100 NY2d 854, 871 [2003]).

Accordingly, we remit this matter to the Supreme Court, Putnam County, for the recalculation of the interest accrued on the award of the principal sum of $72,000 in unpaid no-fault benefits, by applying simple interest at the rate of 2% per month, from January 15, 2005, through July 15, 2010, and the entry of an appropriate amended judgment thereafter. Mastro, J.P., Rivera, Skelos and Dillon, JJ., concur.