[*1]

Elovich & Adell, Long Beach, N.Y. (A. Trudy Adell, Mitchel Sommer, and Darryn Solotoff of counsel), for appellant.

Breen & Clancy, Hauppauge, N.Y. (Anne Marie Caradonna of counsel), for respondent.

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR 7503 to permanently stay arbitration of a claim for supplementary uninsured/underinsured motorist benefits, Joseph Brand appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Diamond, J.), dated November 15, 2012, which granted the petition.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

On October 17, 2011, Joseph Brand was operating a bicycle on Rockley Boulevard in Sarasota, Florida, when he was struck by a motor vehicle owned and operated by Thomas Collins. Brand sustained multiple serious injuries. Collins is a resident of Florida and his motor vehicle is registered in Florida. Brand is a resident of New York.

At the time of the accident, Collins maintained automobile liability insurance in Florida with Allstate Insurance Company with liability limits for bodily injury in the amount of $100,000 per person/$300,000 per occurrence and supplementary uninsured/underinsured motorist (hereinafter SUM) coverage for bodily injury in the amount of $100,000 per person/$300,000 per occurrence. Allstate tendered the bodily injury policy limit in the amount of $100,000 in settlement of Brand’s claim.

At the time of the accident, Brand maintained automobile insurance coverage with the petitioner Unitrin Direct/Warner Insurance Company (hereinafter Unitrin) with policy limits for bodily injury also of $100,000 per person/$300,000 per occurrence and SUM coverage for bodily injury also of $100,000 per person/$300,000 per occurrence. Brand claimed that his injuries exceeded the limits of Collins’ policy, and demanded from the American Arbitration Association in New York arbitration of a claim for SUM benefits under his Unitrin policy. In response to Brand’s demand for arbitration, Unitrin moved for a permanent stay of arbitration on the ground that the SUM coverage was not triggered under New York law because the offending vehicle was not underinsured since Collins’ bodily injury liability coverage under the Allstate policy equaled Brand’s bodily injury liability coverage under the Unitrin policy. Unitrin argues that the “center of [*2]gravity”/”grouping of contacts” analysis demonstrates that New York is the forum that has the most significant contact to the dispute such that New York law should govern this matter. Brand contends, however, that under the “center of gravity”/”grouping of contacts” analysis, Florida law should control.

It is undisputed that this conflict of law question, although arising in the context of a motor vehicle accident, must be resolved by the conflict of law rules relevant to contracts, not torts (see Matter of Eagle Ins. Co. v Singletary, 279 AD2d 56 [2000]). Generally, “the courts apply the more flexible ‘center of gravity’ or ‘grouping of contacts’ inquiry, which permits consideration of the ‘spectrum of significant contacts’ in order to determine which State has the most significant contacts to the particular contract dispute” (id. at 58-59, quoting Matter of Allstate Ins. Co. [Stolarz—New Jersey Mfrs. Ins. Co.], 81 NY2d 219, 226 [1993]). “In general, significant contacts in a case involving contracts, in addition to the place of contracting, are the place of negotiation and performance, the location of the subject matter of the contract, and the domicile or place of business of the contracting parties” (id. at 59). As to insurance contracts specifically, significance has been attached to the “ ’local law of the state which the parties understood was to be the principal location of the insured risk . . . unless with respect to the particular issue, some other state has a more significant relationship under the principles stated in § 6 [of the Restatement] to the transaction and the parties’ ” (Zurich Ins. Co. v Shearson Lehman Hutton, 84 NY2d 309, 318 [1994], quoting Restatement [Second] of Conflict of Laws § 193). In the case of a noncommercial vehicle, which is by its nature mobile, the principal location of the insured risk is the place where the vehicle is to be principally garaged (Matter of Eagle Ins. Co. v Singletary, 279 AD2d at 59).

Here, as the Supreme Court correctly noted, the insurance contract at issue was written to conform to the laws, rules and regulations of New York State, and was obtained in New York by Brand, a New York resident, from an insurance company doing business in New York. Furthermore, Brand served the demand for SUM arbitration upon the American Arbitration Association in New York. Applying the grouping of contacts inquiry to these facts, New York has the most significant contacts with the parties and the contract. Indeed, such a conclusion would be in conformity with the reasonable expectations of the contracting parties.

Brand’s reliance on Florida as the situs of the accident confuses the contacts that might be significant in a tort case with those that are material in a contract dispute (see Matter of Allstate Ins. Co. [Stolarz—New Jersey Mfrs. Ins. Co.], 81 NY2d 219 [1993]). New York law applies herein.

Under New York law, SUM coverage is only triggered where the bodily injury liability insurance limits of the policy covering the tortfeasor’s vehicle are less than the liability limits of the policy under which a party is seeking SUM benefits (see Insurance Law § 3420 [f] [2] [A]; Matter of Allstate Ins. Co. v Rivera, 12 NY3d 602, 607-608 [2009]; Matter of AIU Ins. Co. v Hibbert, 85 AD3d 779 [2011]). Here, Collins’ Allstate policy limits for bodily injury were identical to Brand’s Unitrin policy limits for bodily injury. Hence, Collins does not qualify as an underinsured driver.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the petitioner’s application to permanently stay arbitration of a claim for SUM benefits.

Brand’s contention that Unitrin’s payment of first party benefits constituted an agreement that Florida law controls is without merit, as Unitrin’s payment of first party benefits in the first instance was required pursuant to 11 NYCRR 65-3.12 (a) (3) and (b). To the extent there was a dispute between Unitrin and Allstate as to the priority of first party benefits, that is a matter to be resolved between the insurers (see Insurance Law § 5105; 11 NYCRR 65-3.12 [b]; 65-4.11).

Brand’s remaining contentions are without merit. Skelos, J.P., Austin, Sgroi and LaSalle, JJ., concur.

[*1]

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

Freiberg, Peck & Kang, LLP, Armonk, N.Y. (Yilo J. Kang of counsel), for respondent.

In an action to recover no-fault benefits under a policy of automobile insurance, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (McCormack, J.), dated October 16, 2012, which denied its motion for summary judgment on the complaint and granted the defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on the complaint is granted, and the defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is denied.

In March 2011, Ana Rodriguez, who was insured under a policy of automobile insurance issued by the defendant, New York Central Mutual Fire Insurance Company (hereinafter New York Central), allegedly was injured in an automobile accident. In November 2011, she received treatment at a hospital facility of the plaintiff, Mount Sinai Hospital (hereinafter Mount Sinai). In early December 2011, a few days after Mount Sinai rendered this treatment, it sought payment for it. Mount Sinai’s third-party biller, The Outsource Group (hereinafter Outsource), sent a Form UB-04 and a letter requesting payment to New York Central. Twenty days after New York Central received the request, it requested verification of Mount Sinai’s claim. Approximately one week after New York Central sent the verification request, it received from Outsource more than 100 pages of documents, including records of Rodriguez’s treatment at Mount Sinai and various forms Rodriguez had completed there. New York Central did not request further verification. On January 27, 2012, less than 30 days after it received these records, New York Central issued a denial of the claim on a Form NF-10. The Form NF-10 was, in all substantial respects, complete.

Two months later, on March 26, 2012, Mount Sinai, which was now represented by a different third-party biller, issued another request for payment of its bill for the treatment it had rendered to Rodriguez. This time, Mount Sinai’s third-party biller issued the request on a Form NF-5. New York Central ignored this request for payment, and, in May 2012, Mount Sinai, as assignee of Rodriguez, commenced this action seeking payment. Mount Sinai eventually moved for summary judgment on the complaint, and New York Central cross-moved for summary judgment dismissing [*2]the complaint. The Supreme Court denied Mount Sinai’s motion and granted New York Central’s cross motion. Mount Sinai appeals. We reverse.

In Sound Shore Med. Ctr. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. (106 AD3d 157 [2013]), this Court summarized the claim procedure under New York’s “no-fault” insurance scheme:

“Pursuant to the regulations promulgated by the Superintendent of Insurance to implement the No-Fault Law (Insurance Law art 51), an injured party, or that person’s assignee, must submit a written notice of claim to an insurer no later than 45 days after services are rendered (11 NYCRR 65-2.4). The written notice required to obtain first party benefits ‘shall be deemed to be satisfied by the insurer’s receipt of a completed prescribed application for motor vehicle no-fault benefits (NYS Form N-F 2) . . . or by the insurer’s receipt of a completed hospital facility form (NYS Form N-F 5)’ (11 NYCRR 65-3.3 [d]). ‘[P]roof of claim . . . shall include verification of all of the relevant information requested’ (11 NYCRR 65-3.8 [a] [1]). ‘An insurer must accept proof of claim submitted on a form other than a prescribed form if it contains substantially the same information as the prescribed form’ (11 NYCRR 65-3.5 [f]). However, 11 NYCRR 65-3.5 (g) provides that ‘[i]n lieu of a prescribed application for motor vehicle no-fault benefits submitted by an applicant [NYS Form N-F 2] and a verification of hospital treatment (NYS form NF-4), an insurer shall accept a completed hospital facility form (NYS form NF-5) (or an NF-5 and uniform billing form [UBF-1] which together supply all the information requested by the NF-5) submitted by a provider of health services with respect to the claim of such provider.’

“Within 30 calendar days after receipt of the proof of claim for no-fault benefits, an insurer can either pay the claim, in whole or in part, deny it, or seek verification of it (see Insurance Law § 5106 [a]; 11 NYCRR 65-3.8 [c]). A no-fault insurance carrier waives its defenses, other than those based on the complete absence of coverage (e.g., a defense to the effect that it never wrote a policy for the claimant), if it fails to deny a no-fault claim, or seek verification, within 30 calendar days after having received proof of claim (see Insurance Law § 5106 [a]; 11 NYCRR 65-3.8 [a] [1]; [c] . . . ).

“When a no-fault claim has been assigned to a hospital or medical provider and the hospital or medical provider sends an N-F 5 form to the no-fault insurer, the no-fault insurer’s receipt of an N-F 5 form triggers the running of the 30-day period within which the insurer has a duty to pay or to deny the claim, or to seek verification of it. Subsequent to the receipt of the N-F 5 form, if the insurer requires any additional information to evaluate the proof of claim, such request for verification must be made within 15 business days of the receipt of the N-F 5 form in order to toll the 30-day period (see 11 NYCRR 65-3.5 [b]). Where there is a timely original request for verification, but no response to the request for verification is received [*3]within 30 calendar days thereafter, or the response to the original request for verification is incomplete, then the insurer, within 10 calendar days after the expiration of that 30-day period, must follow up with a second request for verification (see 11 NYCRR 65-3.6 [b]). If there is no response to the second, or follow-up, request for verification, the time in which the insurer must decide whether to pay or deny the claim is indefinitely tolled. Thus, when a no-fault medical service provider fails to respond to the requests for verification, the 30 days in which to pay or deny the claim is tolled and does not begin to run. Accordingly, any claim for payment by the medical service provider after two timely requests for verification have been sent by the insurer subsequent to its receipt of an N-F 5 form from the medical service provider is premature, if the provider has not responded to the requests. Nothing in the rules requires a second follow-up, that is, a third request for verification.

“However, a request for verification that precedes a no-fault insurer’s receipt of the prescribed N-F 5 claim form does not trigger the tolling of the 30-day period within which an insurer must determine whether to pay or deny such a claim. The ‘UBF-1’ form referred to in 11 NYCRR 65-3.5 (g) is the predecessor of the current ‘UB-04’ form. Under 11 NYCRR 65-3.5 (g), a UBF-1/UB-04 form together with an N-F 5 form must be accepted by a no-fault insurer. The regulation does not state that a UBF-1/UB-04 form alone must be treated as the ‘functional equivalent’ of an N-F 5 form” (id. at 162-164 [citations omitted]).

Here, in reliance on Sound Shore, Mount Sinai contends that its billing through Outsource in December 2011 on a Form UB-04 did not commence the 30-day period in which New York Central was required to pay, deny, or request verification of Mount Sinai’s claim. Instead, Mount Sinai contends, the 30-day period commenced in March 2012, when Mount Sinai submitted a billing request on a Form NF-5. In effect, Mount Sinai contends, New York Central’s denial of claim in January 2012 did not deny anything; there was no claim submitted in December to deny. Finally, inasmuch as Mount Sinai established, prima facie, that New York Central did not pay, deny, or request verification of the March claim within 30 days after receiving it, New York Central had waived its defenses, so summary judgment on the complaint was required (see Viviane Etienne Med. Care, P.C. v Country-Wide Ins. Co., 114 AD3d 33, 41 [2013]).

New York Central, by contrast, contends that the 30-day period commenced when it received the Form UB-04 in December 2011, that it timely requested verification of the claim, and that, after it received the medical records, it timely denied the claim in January 2012. Mount Sinai could not commence the 30-day clock anew by submitting the same claim several months later (see Hospital for Joint Diseases v Allstate Ins. Co., 5 AD3d 441, 442 [2004]).

We conclude that the Supreme Court erred in denying Mount Sinai’s motion for summary judgment on the complaint and in granting New York Central’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Under our decision in Sound Shore, the 30-day period for New York Central to pay or deny the claim did not begin to run until March 26, 2012, when Mount Sinai submitted the Form NF-5, which contained the information needed. Because New York Central did not pay or deny the claim within 30 days thereafter, it was precluded from raising defenses. In other words, the defective “claim” submitted in December 2011 did not start the 30-day clock, so New York Central’s denial in January 2012 was of no effect (see Mount Sinai Hosp. v Dust Tr., Inc., 117 AD3d 921, 921 [2014]).

In summary, in support of its motion for summary judgment on the complaint, Mount Sinai satisfied its prima facie burden of establishing that New York Central received its Form NF-5 in March 2012 and that payment of the no-fault benefits was overdue because the claim was neither [*4]paid nor denied within 30 days (see Westchester Med. Ctr. v Allstate Ins. Co., 114 AD3d 672, 672-673 [2014]; Viviane Etienne Med. Care, P.C. v Country-Wide Ins. Co., 114 AD3d at 40-41). In opposition, New York Central failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Westchester Med. Ctr. v Allstate Ins. Co., 114 AD3d at 672-673).

Moreover, the Supreme Court should have denied New York Central’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Mount Sinai’s complaint was predicated solely upon New York Central’s failure to pay or deny the March 2012 claim within 30 days of receipt. New York Central failed to establish, prima facie, that it paid or denied that claim within 30 days after receipt. Accordingly, New York Central was not entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaint (see New York & Presbyt. Hosp. v Allstate Ins. Co., 31 AD3d 512, 513 [2006]; cf. Hospital for Joint Diseases v Allstate Ins. Co., 5 AD3d at 442).

In light of our determination, we need not address Mount Sinai’s remaining contention. Rivera, J.P., Balkin, Hinds-Radix and Maltese, JJ., concur.

[*1]

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

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol R. Edmead, J.), entered on or about March 22, 2013, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted so much of plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment as sought a declaration that plaintiff properly disclaimed coverage of its insured, defendant Gregory Huff (defendants Alleviation Medical Services, P.C. and Great Health Care Chiropractic P.C.’s assignor), based, inter alia, on Huff’s breach of a condition precedent to coverage under the policy, and a permanent stay of any arbitration or court hearing for no-fault benefits arising from the underlying alleged accident involving Huff, and declared, among other things, that the disclaimer is proper, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The instant action arises out of an automobile accident that occurred on or about April 28, 2011, involving a vehicle insured by plaintiff. The vehicle’s owner and driver, defendant Gregory Huff, assigned his no-fault insurance benefits to defendant medical providers. Plaintiff commenced this action, in effect, seeking a declaration that it is not obligated to pay these no-fault benefits to defendants because, among other reasons, Huff failed to complete an examination under oath (EUO), as required by the subject insurance policy. Thus, plaintiff asserts that Huff breached a condition precedent to coverage under the policy, and defendant medical providers are not entitled to recover Huff’s no-fault benefits.

We find that Supreme Court properly granted summary judgment in plaintiff’s favor. In support of its motion, plaintiff relied primarily upon Huff’s EUO, which was corroborated by the affidavit of plaintiff’s investigator who was present at the examination. The EUO established that Huff appeared for his EUO, but departed before questions regarding the accident and his injuries had been asked. The aborted EUO of Huff, the named insured, established a prima facie case that Huff had breached a condition precedent to coverage under the policy.

In opposition, defendants do not dispute what occurred at the EUO. Instead, defendants argue that the transcript of the EUO was inadmissible. We find, however, that the EUO [*2]transcript of Huff was admissible evidence on the motion for summary judgment as it was certified by the court reporter and is considered a party admission (see Zalot v Zieba, 81 AD3d 935, 936 [2d Dept 2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 703 [2011]). Even if this were not the case, the affidavit of plaintiff’s investigator confirms that Huff did not seek another EUO, a fact the insured does not dispute. Insofar as defendants complain that plaintiff did not seek another EUO, the record demonstrates that Huff, represented by counsel, was advised of the ramifications of his refusal to continue the EUO, and confirmed that he understood.

An assignee “stands in the shoes” of an assignor and thus acquires no greater rights than its assignor (see Arena Constr. Co. v Sackaris & Sons, 282 AD2d 489 [2d Dept 2001]; see also Dilon Med. Supply Corp. v Travelers Ins. Co., 7 Misc 3d 927, 930 [Civ Ct, Kings County 2005]). Since the defense of the breach of a condition precedent to coverage under the policy may indisputably be raised by plaintiff against Huff, it is available as against defendants, who accepted assignments of no-fault benefits (see Hammelburger v Foursome Inn Corp., 54 NY2d 580, 586 [1981]; Losner v Cashline, L.P., 303 AD2d 647, 648 [2d Dept 2003]). Concur—Sweeny, J.P., Renwick, Andrias, Richter and Kapnick, JJ.

[*1]

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

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

In an action to recover no-fault medical payments under an insurance contract, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Mahon, J.), entered October 2, 2013, which denied its motion for summary judgment on the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff demonstrated its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the complaint, in which the plaintiff sought to recover no-fault medical payments from the defendant, by tendering proof that the claim was neither paid nor denied within 30 days of the defendant’s receipt of the prescribed claim forms (see Westchester Med. Ctr. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 51 AD3d 1014, 1017 [2008]; Westchester Med. Ctr. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 44 AD3d 750, 752 [2007]). However, in opposition, the defendant raised a triable issue of fact as to whether it timely and properly denied the claim based on the alleged intoxication of the plaintiff’s assignor at the time of the accident by the issuance of a denial within 30 days of the receipt of additional verification it requested concerning the claim (see Westchester Med. Ctr. v Clarendon Natl. Ins. Co., 57 AD3d 659, 660 [2008]; Westchester Med. Ctr. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 51 AD3d at 1017). Although, as the defendant acknowledges, some of the evidence it submitted was not in admissible form, it proffered an “acceptable excuse for [its] failure to meet the strict requirement of tender in admissible form” (Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]; see Merriman v Integrated Bldg. Controls, Inc., 84 AD3d 897, 899 [2011]; cf. Oddo v Edo Mar. Air, 34 AD3d 774, 775 [2006]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on the complaint. Mastro, J.P., Chambers, Lott and Roman, JJ., concur.

[*1]

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

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

In an action to recover no-fault benefits under two insurance contracts, the defendant appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Sher, J.), entered September 21, 2011, as, upon reargument, in effect, vacated the determination in a prior order of the same court entered June 21, 2011, denying that branch of the plaintiffs’ motion which was for summary judgment on the first cause of action and thereupon granted that branch of the plaintiffs’ motion.

Ordered that the order entered September 21, 2011, is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, and, upon reargument, the determination in the order entered June 21, 2011, denying that branch of the plaintiffs’ motion which was for summary judgment on the first cause of action is adhered to.

The plaintiffs commenced this action to recover, inter alia, the amounts billed to the defendant for medical services rendered to nonparty Chetanaben Patel, who assigned her no-fault insurance benefits to the plaintiff New York University Hospital-Tisch Institute. Only the first cause of action, related to the Patel claim, is at issue here. The plaintiffs moved for summary judgment on the complaint and, in an order entered June 21, 2011, the Supreme Court denied that branch of the motion which was for summary judgment on the first cause of action. The plaintiffs moved for leave to reargue. The Supreme Court granted the plaintiffs’ motion for leave to reargue, and, upon reargument, granted that branch of their prior motion which was for summary judgment on the first cause of action. The court concluded, upon reargument, that the defendant’s peer review report was “fatally defective” because it failed to satisfy the affirmation requirements of CPLR 2106, and that, in the absence of the peer review report or any other medical evidence, the defendant failed to raise a triable issue of fact in opposition to the plaintiffs’ motion. The defendant appeals.

The plaintiffs established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting proof demonstrating that the prescribed billing forms were mailed to and received by [*2]the defendant insurer, and that the insurer failed to either pay or deny the claim within the requisite 30-day period (see Insurance Law § 5106 [a]; 11 NYCRR 65-3.8 [a] [1]; Viviane Etienne Med. Care, P.C. v Country-Wide Ins. Co., 114 AD3d 33 [2013]; Westchester Med. Ctr. v Hereford Ins. Co., 95 AD3d 1306, 1306-1307 [2012]; NYU-Hosp. for Joint Diseases v American Intl. Group, Inc., 89 AD3d 702, 703 [2011]; Mount Sinai Hosp. v Country Wide Ins. Co., 85 AD3d 1136, 1137 [2011]).

In opposition to the plaintiffs’ prima facie showing, however, the defendant insurer raised a triable issue of fact. A defendant-insurer is required either to pay or deny a claim for no-fault benefits within 30 days of “proof of claim, which shall include verification of all of the relevant information requested” (11 NYCRR 65-3.8 [a] [1]; see Insurance Law § 5106 [a]; Presbyterian Hosp. in City of N.Y. v Maryland Cas. Co., 90 NY2d 274, 278 [1997]; Hospital for Joint Diseases v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 44 AD3d 903, 903-904 [2007]; New York & Presbyt. Hosp. v Allstate Ins. Co., 30 AD3d 492, 493 [2006]; Nyack Hosp. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 11 AD3d 664, 665 [2004]). “When a no-fault claim has been assigned to a hospital or medical provider and the hospital or medical provider sends an N-F 5 form to the no-fault insurer, the no-fault insurer’s receipt of an N-F 5 form triggers the running of the 30-day period within which the insurer has a duty to pay or to deny the claim, or to seek verification of it” (Sound Shore Med. Ctr. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 106 AD3d 157, 163 [2013]; see Hospital for Joint Diseases v Travelers Prop. Cas. Ins. Co., 9 NY3d 312, 317 [2007]). “Subsequent to the receipt of the N-F 5 form, if the insurer requires any additional information to evaluate the proof of claim, such request for verification must be made within 15 business days of the receipt of the N-F 5 form in order to toll the 30-day period” (Sound Shore Med. Ctr. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 106 AD3d at 163; see 11 NYCRR 65-3.5 [b]; Hospital for Joint Diseases v Travelers Prop. Cas. Ins. Co., 9 NY3d at 317). A proper request for verification will serve to toll the 30-day statutory time period for payment of the claim (see Hospital for Joint Diseases v Travelers Prop. Cas. Ins. Co., 9 NY3d at 317; New York & Presbyt. Hosp. v Allstate Ins. Co., 30 AD3d at 493; Hospital for Joint Diseases v ELRAC, Inc., 11 AD3d 432, 434 [2004]). Here, the evidence submitted by the defendant demonstrated that it received the last of the responses to its requests for additional verification on December 21, 2010, at which time the 30-day period within which it was required to pay or deny the claim began to run. The defendant issued a denial of claim dated January 19, 2011, 29 days later. Thus, in opposition to the plaintiffs’ prima facie showing, the defendant raised a triable issue of fact as to whether it denied the plaintiffs’ claim within the requisite 30-day period, as tolled by its requests for additional verification (see generally Hospital for Joint Diseases v Travelers Prop. Cas. Ins. Co., 9 NY3d at 317; Sound Shore Med. Ctr. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 106 AD3d at 163; see also 11 NYCRR 65-3.5 [b]). Contrary to the Supreme Court’s determination, the defendant was not required to set forth a medical rationale in its denial of claim form or, in the absence of a written request, to furnish a copy of the peer review report, in admissible form or otherwise (see New York Univ. Hosp. Rusk Inst. v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 39 AD3d 832, 832-833 [2007]; see also A.B. Med. Servs., PLLC v Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 39 AD3d 779, 780-781 [2007]; A.B. Med. Servs., PLLC v GEICO Cas. Ins. Co., 39 AD3d 778, 779 [2007]; 11 NYCRR 65-3.8 [b] [4]).

Accordingly, the Supreme Court, upon reargument, should have adhered to its prior determination denying that branch of the plaintiffs’ prior motion which was for summary judgment on the first cause of action. Skelos, J.P., Balkin, Dickerson and Hinds-Radix, JJ., concur.

[*1]

Blodnick Fazio & Associates, P.C., Garden City (Edward K. Blodnick of counsel), for appellants.

Kaufman Borgeest & Ryan LLP, Valhalla (Jacqueline Mandell of counsel), for respondents.

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Norma Ruiz, J.), entered October 24, 2012, which granted the motions of defendants Allstate Insurance Company, Robert P. Macchia, and Mehmet F. Gokce to dismiss the complaint, and denied plaintiffs’ cross motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Where an amended pleading is submitted in response to a pre-answer motion to dismiss, the provident course of action for the motion court is to include the amended complaint in the record on the pending motion, which should then be granted or denied based on the sufficiency of the amended pleading (see e.g. Polish Am. Immigration Relief Comm. v Relax, 172 AD2d 374, 375 [1st Dept 1991]; see also Weinstein-Korn-Miller, NY Civ Prac ¶ 3025.07 [2d ed 2011]).

Here, the amended complaint, like the original complaint, was insufficient to state a cause of action upon which relief could be granted. Plaintiffs asserted that defendant Allstate had no right to investigate whether they were fraudulently licensed under Public Health Law article 28 and therefore ineligible to receive no-fault reimbursements. Allstate plainly has that right (see e.g. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v Mallela, 4 NY3d 313 [2005]; One Beacon Ins. Group, LLC v Midland Med. Care, P.C., 54 AD3d 738, 740 [2d Dept 2008]). Plaintiffs also attempted to assert causes of action against Allstate’s counsel, defendants Robert P. Macchia and Mehmet P. Gokce for undertaking a legitimate investigation at Allstate’s behest. It is well settled that no [*2]such cause of action lies (Hahn v Wylie, 54 AD2d 629, 629 [1st Dept 1976]).

We have considered the plaintiffs’ remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Andrias, DeGrasse, Manzanet-Daniels and Feinman, JJ. [Prior Case History: 2012 NY Slip Op 33515(U).]

—[*1] Bruno Gerbino & Soriano, LLP, Melville, N.Y. (Mitchell L. Kaufman of counsel), for appellant.

Moshe D. Fuld, P.C., Brooklyn, N.Y. (David Karp of counsel), for respondents.

In an action for a judgment declaring that the plaintiff is not obligated to pay certain no-fault insurance benefits, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Molia, J.), dated September 28, 2012, as, upon renewal of that branch of its prior motion which was for summary judgment, in effect, declaring that it is not obligated to pay the subject no-fault insurance benefits to the defendants Stracar Medical Services, P.C., Sweetwater Chiropractic, P.C., and Urban Well Acupuncture, P.C., adjourned the matter and directed that those defendants appear and testify at an examination under oath, at a date, time, and place mutually agreed upon by the parties.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, upon renewal, the determination in an order of the same court dated December 8, 2010, denying that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was for summary judgment, in effect, declaring that it is not obligated to pay the subject no-fault claims to the defendants Stracar Medical Services, P.C., Sweetwater Chiropractic, P.C., and Urban Well Acupuncture, P.C., is vacated, that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was for summary judgment is granted, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, for entry of a judgment, inter alia, declaring that the plaintiff is not obligated to pay the subject no-fault claims to the defendants Stracar Medical Services, P.C., Sweetwater Chiropractic, P.C., and Urban Well Acupuncture, P.C.; and it is further,

Ordered that one bill of costs is awarded to the plaintiff.

The instant action arises out of an automobile accident that occurred on January 18, 2009, involving a vehicle insured by the plaintiff. The vehicle’s owner and driver, as well as the three passengers allegedly in the vehicle at the time of the accident, assigned their no-fault insurance benefits to certain medical providers, who are the defendants in this action. The plaintiff moved for summary judgment, in effect, declaring that it is not obligated to pay these no-fault benefits to the defendants Stracar Medical Services, P.C., Sweetwater Chiropractic, P.C., and Urban Well Acupuncture, P.C. (hereinafter collectively the assignees). The plaintiff argued that it was entitled to summary judgment because the assignees failed to appear at an examination under oath, as required by the subject insurance policies and, thus, they breached a condition precedent to coverage [*2]under the policies and were not entitled to recover their patients’ no-fault benefits. In an order dated December 8, 2010, the Supreme Court denied that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was for summary judgment, in effect, declaring that it is not obligated to pay no-fault benefits to the assignees.

The plaintiff moved for leave to renew the subject branch of its motion. In an order dated September 28, 2012, the Supreme Court granted renewal, but thereupon adjourned the matter and directed the assignees to appear and testify at an examination under oath. The Supreme Court determined that the assignees “shall be given a final opportunity to appear for the [examination under oath] sought by plaintiff.” The plaintiff appeals.

Upon renewal, the Supreme Court erred in adjourning the matter and giving the assignees another chance to appear at an examination under oath. “It is well established that the failure to comply with the standard policy provision requiring disclosure by way of submission to an examination under oath, as often as may be reasonably required, as a condition precedent to performance of the promise to indemnify, constitutes a material breach” of the policy, precluding recovery of the policy proceeds (Bulzomi v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 92 AD2d 878, 878 [1983] see Interboro Ins. Co. v Clennon, 113 AD3d 596 [2014] Argento v Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 184 AD2d 487, 487-488 [1992]). In support of that branch of its motion which was for summary judgment, the plaintiff, upon renewal, submitted evidence establishing “that it twice duly demanded an examination under oath” from the assignees, that the assignees twice failed to appear, and that the plaintiff “issued a timely denial of the claims” arising from the assignees’ provision of medical services to the assignors (Interboro Ins. Co. v Clennon, 113 AD3d at 597). Based upon the foregoing, the plaintiff established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see id.; Stephen Fogel Psychological, P.C. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 35 AD3d 720, 721 [2006]).

In opposition to the plaintiff’s prima facie showing, the assignees failed to submit evidence of a reasonable excuse for their noncompliance with the demands for examinations under oath, or of partial performance on their part (see Lentini Bros. Moving & Stor. Co. v New York Prop. Ins. Underwriting Assn., 53 NY2d 835, 836 [1981] Bulzomi v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 92 AD2d at 878-879). The assignees also failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to the reasonableness or propriety of the demands for the examinations under oath (see Interboro Ins. Co. v Clennon, 113 AD3d at 597). Moreover, “the [assignees’] breach of the policy was not cured by [their] belated expression of a willingness to cooperate which was made more than two years after the loss and only in response to the insurer’s motion for summary judgment” (Johnson v Allstate Ins. Co., 197 AD2d 672, 672 [1993] see Lentini Bros. Moving & Stor. Co. v New York Prop. Ins. Underwriting Assn., 53 NY2d at 836; Azeem v Colonial Assur. Co., 96 AD2d 123, 125 [1983], affd 62 NY2d 951 [1984]). “[A]n insurance company is entitled to obtain information promptly while the information is still fresh to enable it to decide upon its obligations and protect against false claims. To permit [the defendants] to give the information more than [two] years after the [loss] would have been a material dilution of the insurance company’s rights” (Argento v Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 184 AD2d at 488).

In view of the assignees’ unexcused and willful failure to comply with the demands for examinations under oath, and the lack of evidence of partial performance, the Supreme Court, upon renewal, should have unconditionally awarded summary judgment to the plaintiff (see Lentini Bros. Moving & Stor. Co. v New York Prop. Ins. Underwriting Assn., 53 NY2d at 837; Matter of New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v Rafailov, 41 AD3d 603, 604-605 [2007] Bulzomi v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 92 AD2d at 878-879; Argento v Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 184 AD2d at 488; cf. V.M.V. Mgt. Co., Inc. v Peerless Ins., 15 AD3d 647 [2005] Avarello v State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 208 AD2d 483 [1994]).

In light of our determination, we need not reach the plaintiff’s remaining contention.

Since this is a declaratory judgment action, the matter must be remitted to the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, for the entry of a judgment, inter alia, declaring that the plaintiff is not obligated to pay the subject no-fault benefits to the assignees (see Lanza v Wagner, 11 NY2d 317, 334 [1962], appeal dismissed 371 US 74 [1962], cert denied 371 US 901 [1962]). Dillon, J.P., Hall, Austin and Duffy, JJ., concur.

—[*1] Shayne, Dachs, Sauer & Dachs, LLP, Mineola (Jonathan A. Dachs of counsel), for appellant.

Crisci, Weiser & McCarthy, New York (Jayashri C. Srinivasan Cuffey of counsel), for respondent.

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Mary Ann Brigantti-Hughes, J.), entered on or about January 7, 2013, which granted defendant’s cross motion to dismiss the complaint, and denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

11 NYCRR 65-3.11 (a) provides, in relevant part, for the payment of no-fault benefits “directly to the applicant . . . or, upon assignment by the applicant . . . to [the] providers of health care services.” Plaintiff Aetna Health Plans is not a “health care provider” under the statute, but rather a health care insurer (see A.M. Med. Servs., P.C. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 101 AD3d 53, 62 [2d Dept 2012] Craig Antell, D.O., P.C. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 11 Misc 3d 137[A], 2006 NY Slip Op 50521[U] [App Term, 1st Dept 2006]).

While the No-Fault Law provides a limited window of arbitration between no-fault insurers (see Insurance Law §§ 5105, 5106 [d] Eagle Ins. Co. v ELRAC, Inc., 291 AD2d 272 [1st Dept 2002]), the statutory language does not pertain to a health insurer such as Aetna. Thus, Aetna cannot maintain a claim against defendant under the principle of subrogation (see Health Ins. Plan of Greater N.Y. v Allstate Ins. Co., 2007 NY Slip Op 33925[U] [Sup Ct, NY County 2007]). Nor may Aetna assert a breach of contract claim against Hanover, [*2]since it is not in privity of contract with Hanover, and there has been no showing that it was an intended third-party beneficiary of the contract. Concur—Tom, J.P., Acosta, Freedman and Kapnick, JJ. [Prior Case History: 2013 NY Slip Op 33221(U).]

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

Gullo & Associates, LLC, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Cristina Carollo of counsel), for respondent.

In an action to recover no-fault benefits under a policy of automobile insurance, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Brown, J.), dated July 10, 2012, as denied its motion for summary judgment on the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

Generally, a party opposing a motion for summary judgment need only “raise a triable issue of fact with respect to the . . . theory . . . that is the subject of the moving party’s prima facie showing” (Stukas v Streiter, 83 AD3d 18, 24 [2011]). Here, in light of the limited basis of the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on the complaint, which was premised solely on the defendant’s alleged failure to timely pay or deny the no-fault claim within 30 days of receipt of proof of the claim (see Insurance Law § 5106 [a]; 11 NYCRR 65-3.8 [a] [1]; [c]), “the defendant’s only burden in opposition . . . was to raise a triable issue of fact regarding its timely . . . denial of the [plaintiff’s] claim” (Lenox Hill Hosp. v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 89 AD3d 905, 905 [2011]; see Viviane Etienne Med. Care, P.C., v Country-Wide Ins. Co., 114 AD3d 33 [2013]; Westchester Med. Ctr. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 89 AD3d 1081, 1082-1083 [2011]). In opposition to the plaintiff’s prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, the defendant satisfied its burden by raising a triable issue of fact as to whether it did in fact mail a proper NF-10 denial of claim form to the plaintiff only 22 days after its receipt of the claim verification that it had previously requested (see Wyckoff Hgts. Med. Ctr. v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 114 AD3d 855 [2014]; Westchester Med. Ctr. v Lancer Ins. Co., 94 AD3d 984 [2012]; Westchester Med. Ctr. v Clarendon Natl. Ins. Co., 57 AD3d 659 [2008]).

We do not reach the parties’ remaining contentions regarding the merits of the defendant’s cross motion, since the defendant has not appealed from so much of the order as denied its cross motion. Mastro, J.P., Hall, Lott and Sgroi, JJ., concur.

—[*1] Spina, Korshin & Welden, Woodbury, N.Y. (Jeanne M. Ortega of counsel), for appellant.

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

In an action to recover no-fault benefits under a policy of automobile insurance, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Brown, J.), entered December 20, 2011, which granted the motion of the plaintiff Wyckoff Heights Medical Center, as assignee of Aida Ruiz, for summary judgment on the first cause of action.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion of the plaintiff Wyckoff Heights Medical Center, as assignee of Aida Ruiz, for summary judgment on its first cause of action is denied.

The plaintiff Wyckoff Heights Medical Center, as assignee of Aida Ruiz (hereinafter the plaintiff), made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on to the first cause of action by submitting evidence that the prescribed statutory billing forms were mailed to and received by the defendant, which failed to either pay or deny the claim within the requisite 30-day period (see Insurance Law § 5106 [a]; 11 NYCRR 65-3.8 [c]; Presbyterian Hosp. in City of N.Y. v Maryland Cas. Co., 90 NY2d 274, 278 [1997]; Viviane Etienne Med. Care, P.C. v Country-Wide Ins. Co., 114 AD3d 33 [2013]; Westchester Med. Ctr. v Hereford Ins. Co., 95 AD3d 1306, 1306-1307 [2012]; Westchester Med. Ctr. v Lancer Ins. Co., 94 AD3d 984 [2012]; NYU-Hosp. for Joint Diseases v American Intl. Group, Inc., 89 AD3d 702, 703 [2011]; Mount Sinai Hosp. v Country Wide Ins. Co., 85 AD3d 1136, 1137 [2011]).

However, in opposition, the defendant raised a triable issue of fact as to whether it timely and properly denied the subject claim (see generally Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]). The defendant submitted evidence showing that it mailed to the plaintiff a denial of claim form NF-10 within the requisite 30-day period (see Insurance Law § 5106 [a]; 11 NYCRR 65-3.8 [c]). Although the denial of claim form incorrectly stated the amount of the claim and the amount in dispute, under the circumstances of this case, these minor errors did not render the denial fatally defective and a nullity (see NYU-Hospital for Joint Diseases v Esurance Ins. Co., 84 AD3d 1190, 1191-1192 [2011]; St. Barnabas Hosp. v Penrac, Inc., 79 AD3d 733, 734 [2010]).

Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, the fact that the defendant attached to its denial [*2]of claim form an unaffirmed and unsworn peer review report, which contained a stamped facsimile of the physician’s signature and did not comply with CPLR 2106, did not render the denial of claim ineffective, since the defendant was not obligated to submit the peer review report in the first instance (see CPLR 2106; cf. Vista Surgical Supplies, Inc. v Travelers Ins. Co., 50 AD3d 778 [2008]). The relevant no-fault regulations do not require that a denial of claim form be supported by a peer review report or other medical evidence at the time that the denial of claim form is issued (cf. 11 NYCRR 65-3.8). Indeed, this Court has previously held that a defendant is not required to set forth a medical rationale in its denial of claim form (see New York Univ. Hosp. Rusk Inst. v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 39 AD3d 832, 832-833 [2007]; A.B. Med. Servs., PLLC v Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 39 AD3d 779, 780 [2007]; A.B. Med. Servs., PLLC v GEICO Cas. Ins. Co., 39 AD3d 778, 779 [2007]).

Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have denied the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on the first cause of action. Rivera, J.P., Chambers, Hall and Miller, JJ., concur.