—[*1] Peter C. Merani, New York, N.Y. (Mark J. Fenelon and William Larkin of counsel), for appellant.

Economou & Economou, LLP, Syosset, N.Y. (Ralph C. Caio of counsel), for respondent.

In an action 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 (Schack, J.), dated June 19, 2010, which denied its motion for summary judgment on the complaint and granted the defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and on his counterclaims, and to confirm the award of a master arbitrator dated December 31, 2008.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, that branch of the defendant’s cross motion which was to confirm the award of the master arbitrator is denied as academic, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for a consideration of the merits of the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on the complaint and those branches of the defendant’s cross motion which were for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and on his counterclaims, and a new determination thereafter of the motion and those branches of the cross motion.

The plaintiff was entitled to commence this action to compel the de novo adjudication of the insurance dispute at issue since a master arbitrator’s award in favor of the defendant exceeded the statutory threshold sum of $5,000 (see Insurance Law § 5106 [c]; Matter of Greenberg [Ryder Truck Rental], 70 NY2d 573, 576-577 [1987]).

The Supreme Court, inter alia, denied the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on the complaint and granted those branches of the defendant’s cross motion which were for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and on his counterclaims, upon concluding that an award of a master arbitrator dated December 31, 2008, made pursuant to an arbitration proceeding instituted pursuant to Insurance Law § 5106 (b), was not arbitrary and capricious.

The Supreme Court erred in denying the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on the complaint solely on the basis that the award of the master arbitrator was not arbitrary and capricious. The plaintiff did not seek to vacate the award of the master arbitrator, and, once the [*2]plaintiff properly invoked its right to de novo review, the issue of whether the award was arbitrary and capricious was rendered academic. For the same reason, the Supreme Court also erred in granting the defendant’s cross motion to confirm the award of the master arbitrator and for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and on his counterclaims, based on the conclusion that the award was not arbitrary and capricious (see Progressive Ins. Co. v Strough, 55 AD3d 1402 [2008]; Matter of Capuano v Allstate Ins. Co., 122 AD2d 138 [1986]; see also Matter of Gersten v American Tr. Ins. Co., 161 Misc 2d 57 [1994]).

Since the Supreme Court did not consider the merits of the plaintiff’s motion or those branches of the defendant’s cross motion which were for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and on his counterclaims, the matter must be remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for a consideration of the merits of the motion and those branches of the cross motion, and a new determination thereafter (see Hunter Sports Shooting Grounds, Inc. v Foley, 73 AD3d 702, 705 [2010]).

In light of our determination, we need not reach the plaintiff’s remaining contentions. Rivera, J.P., Florio, Austin and Sgroi, JJ., concur.

—[*1] McDonnell & Adels, PLLC, Garden City, N.Y. (Anita Nissan Yehuda of counsel), for appellant.

In an action for a judgment declaring that the plaintiff is not obligated to pay no-fault insurance claims submitted by the defendants, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Battaglia, J.), dated November 25, 2009, as, sua sponte, severed the action with respect to certain defendants and denied those branches of the plaintiff’s motion which were pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (3) and (7) to dismiss the defendants’ counterclaims, with leave to renew after joinder of issue on an amended complaint.

Ordered that on the Court’s own motion, the appeal from so much of the order as, sua sponte, severed the action with respect to certain defendants is deemed an application for leave to appeal from that portion of the order, and leave to appeal is granted (see CPLR 5701 [c]); and it is further,

Ordered that the order is modified, on the law, on the facts, and in the exercise of discretion, (1) by deleting the provision thereof severing the action with respect to certain defendants, and (2) by deleting the provision thereof denying that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) to dismiss the defendants’ counterclaims, with leave to renew after joinder of issue on an amended complaint, and substituting therefor a provision granting that branch of the motion; as so modified, the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from; and it is further,

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

The plaintiff insurance company issues automobile insurance policies in New York State which include coverage under the “no-fault” insurance law (see Insurance Law § 5101 et seq.). The plaintiff commenced this action against John McGee (hereinafter Dr. McGee), a licensed physician, and 12 professional medical service corporations owned and operated by Dr. McGee (hereinafter collectively the PCs), alleging that the PCs were fraudulently incorporated in Dr. McGee’s name when they were actually owned, operated, and controlled by unlicensed persons and their management companies in violation of applicable statutes and regulations. The plaintiff seeks a judgment declaring that it is not obligated to pay outstanding and future no-fault insurance claims submitted by the PCs on the primary theory that they were fraudulently incorporated in Dr. McGee’s name to circumvent New York law prohibiting nonphysicians from sharing ownership in medical [*2]service corporations. The plaintiff also seeks declaratory relief on the alternate theories that the PCs failed to provide requested verification of their eligibility to receive no-fault benefits, failed to attend requested examinations under oath in various actions and arbitration proceedings initiated by them to recover no-fault benefits, and submitted bills seeking payment of no-fault benefits for services that were not provided.

Shortly after the defendants joined issue by serving an answer with counterclaims, the plaintiff moved, inter alia, pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (3) and (7) to dismiss the counterclaims. On the return date of the motion, the Supreme Court, sua sponte, raised the issue of severance as to the relief sought against each of the 12 PCs and, at the court’s request, the parties submitted supplemental memoranda on the issue. In the order appealed from, the Supreme Court, among other things, sua sponte, severed the action as to the 12 PCs, but permitted the plaintiff to serve an amended complaint against Dr. McGee and three PCs of the plaintiff’s choosing on a theory of fraudulent incorporation. The Supreme Court also denied those branches of the plaintiff’s motion which were pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (3) and (7) to dismiss the defendants’ counterclaims, with leave to renew after joinder of issue on an amended complaint.

The Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in, sua sponte, severing the action as to the 12 PCs, and, in effect, permitting the action to continue only against Dr. McGee and 3 of the 12 PCs. “Although it is within a trial court’s discretion to grant a severance, this discretion should be exercised sparingly” (Shanley v Callanan Indus., 54 NY2d 52, 57 [1981]; see Curreri v Heritage Prop. Inv. Trust, Inc., 48 AD3d 505, 507 [2008]; Lelekakis v Kamamis, 41 AD3d 662, 666 [2007]). Severance is inappropriate where the claims against the defendants involve common factual and legal issues, and the interests of judicial economy and consistency of verdicts will be served by having a single trial (see Bentoria Holdings, Inc. v Travelers Indem. Co., 84 AD3d 1135 [2011]; Curreri v Heritage Prop. Inv. Trust, Inc., 48 AD3d at 507-508; Lelekakis v Kamamis, 41 AD3d at 666; Naylor v Knoll Farms of Suffolk County, Inc., 31 AD3d 726, 727 [2006]). Here, the complaint alleged the existence of a common scheme to fraudulently incorporate the PCs through the use of Dr. McGee’s professional license, which, if established, would render all of the PCs ineligible to recover no-fault benefits (see State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v Mallela, 4 NY3d 313, 319-322 [2005]). The common factual and legal issues presented as to whether the 12 PCs were fraudulently incorporated predominate the action and, thus, the interests of judicial economy and consistency of verdicts would be not be served by requiring the plaintiff to commence multiple actions. To the contrary, such fragmentation would increase litigation and place “an unnecessary burden on court facilities” (Shanley v Callanan Indus., 54 NY2d at 57), by requiring four separate trials instead of one.

Furthermore, the Supreme Court should have granted that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was to dismiss the defendants’ counterclaims pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7). The counterclaims are predicated on the defendants’ allegation that they are entitled to reimbursement for medical services provided under the medical payments coverage provisions of the subject insurance policies rather than the no-fault coverage provisions. However, medical payments coverage is excess coverage over mandatory no-fault coverage (see 11 NYCRR 65-1.1), and the defendants have failed to allege or otherwise demonstrate that the payments they seek exceed the no-fault threshold of $50,000 for basic economic loss of an eligible injured person for a single accident. Since the defendants have failed to allege facts which, if true, would entitle them to recover for medical services rendered under medical payments coverage, the counterclaims fail to state a cause of action (see generally Leon v Martinez, 84 NY2d 83, 87-88 [1994]; Jaymer Communications, Inc. v Associated Locksmiths of Am., Inc., 84 AD3d 888 [2011]).

The plaintiff’s remaining contention that the Supreme Court should have granted that branch of their motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (3) to dismiss the counterclaims because the defendants lacked standing to assert them is without merit. Rivera, J.P., Eng, Roman and Miller, JJ., concur. [Prior Case History: 25 Misc 3d 1232(A), 2009 NY Slip Op 52385(U).]

—[*1] Thomas Torto, New York, for appellant.

Ruskin Moscou Faltischek, P.C., Uniondale (Matthew F. Didora of counsel), for respondent.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Marylin G. Diamond, J.), entered November 30, 2010, which denied the petition to stay arbitration of claims for no-fault insurance benefits and granted respondent’s cross motion to dismiss the proceeding, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Petitioner argues that respondent is a fraudulently incorporated medical services provider and therefore is not only ineligible for reimbursement of no-fault payments (see State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v Mallela, 4 NY3d 313 [2005]) but is also precluded from demanding arbitration pursuant to Insurance Law § 5106 (b) (and the no-fault policy issued by petitioner). Contrary to this argument, the defense of fraudulent incorporation is “for the arbitrator and not for the courts” (see Matter of Nassau Ins. Co. v McMorris, 41 NY2d 701, 701 [1977]; Matter of MVAIC v Interboro Med. Care & Diagnostic PC, 73 AD3d 667 [2010]). Indeed, it has been the subject of numerous arbitration proceedings (see e.g. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v Kissena Med. Imaging, P.C., 25 Misc 3d 1214[A], 2009 NY Slip Op 52094[U] [2009]; Uptodate Med. Serv., P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 22 Misc 3d 128[A], 2009 NY Slip Op 50046[U], *2 [2009]).

We have considered plaintiff’s remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur—Andrias, J.P., Sweeny, Renwick, Freedman and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

—[*1] Serpe, Andree & Kaufman, Huntington, N.Y. (Cynthia G. Gamana of counsel), for appellant.

Bandel & Bandel, Garden City, N.Y. (Steven Bandel of counsel), for respondents.

In two related subrogation actions to recover insurance benefits paid to the plaintiff’s insured in actions Nos. 1 and 3 and a related action to recover damages for personal injuries (action No. 2), the plaintiff in actions Nos. 1 and 3 appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Parga, J.), dated June 17, 2010, as denied that branch of its motion which was, in effect, to dismiss the counterclaim asserted against it in action No. 3 and, in effect, granted the cross motion of the defendants in actions Nos. 1 and 3 for an award of costs and an attorney’s fee against it pursuant to CPLR 8303-a and 22 NYCRR 130-1.1.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, on the facts, and in the exercise of discretion, with costs, that branch of the motion of the plaintiff in actions Nos. 1 and 3 which was, in effect, to dismiss the counterclaim asserted against it in action No. 3 is granted, and the cross motion of the defendants in actions Nos. 1 and 3 for an award of costs and an attorney’s fee against the plaintiff in actions Nos. 1 and 3 pursuant to CPLR 8303-a and 22 NYCRR 130-1.1 is denied.

Allegedly, on June 8, 2003, a vehicle operated by Scott Shelofsky and owned by Scott Shelofsky and/or Toni Ann Shelofsky (hereinafter together the Shelofskys) collided with a vehicle operated by Rebecca E. Munoz and owned by Bina E. Munoz. Providence Washington Insurance Company (hereinafter Providence) paid the Shelofskys’ insurance claim for damage to their vehicle [*2]resulting from the collision, pursuant to an insurance policy it had issued to them. Thereafter, Providence, as subrogee of the Shelofskys, commenced an action in the District Court, Nassau County, against Bina E. Munoz and Rebecca E. Munoz (hereinafter together the defendants) to recover the insurance benefits it paid to the Shelofskys (hereinafter action No. 3). In their answer, the defendants interposed a counterclaim against Providence to recover damages for injury to property, alleging that damage to their vehicle was caused by Scott Shelofsky’s negligent operation of the Shelofsky vehicle. Providence then commenced a second subrogation action against the defendants in the Supreme Court, Nassau County, this time to recover certain no-fault and uninsured motorist benefits it had paid to the Shelofskys (hereinafter action No. 1).

In an order dated June 25, 2007, the Supreme Court transferred action No. 3 from the District Court to the Supreme Court and joined actions Nos. 1 and 3 for purposes of trial, together with a related personal injury action commenced by Rebecca Munoz against the Shelofskys in connection with the same collision (hereinafter action No. 2). Thereafter, Providence moved pursuant to CPLR 3217 (b) to voluntarily discontinue its causes of action in actions Nos. 1 and 3 and, in effect, to dismiss the defendants’ counterclaim asserted against it in action No. 3. Providence contended that because a counterclaim in a subrogation action may be employed only to assert a set-off against the subrogee’s claim, the voluntary discontinuance of its causes of action warranted dismissal of the counterclaim in action No. 3. The defendants cross-moved for an award of costs and an attorney’s fee against Providence pursuant to CPLR 8303-a and 22 NYCRR 130-1.1. The Supreme Court granted that branch of Providence’s motion which was to voluntarily discontinue its causes of action in actions Nos. 1 and 3, but denied that branch of Providence’s motion which was, in effect, to dismiss the defendants’ counterclaim asserted against it in action No. 3 and, in effect, granted the defendants’ cross motion. We reverse the order insofar as appealed from.

Contrary to the defendants’ contention, their counterclaim against Providence in action No. 3 “cannot effect an affirmative recovery against [Providence], but rather may be maintained . . . only to the extent of setting off [Providence]’s claim” (Peerless Ins. Co. v Michael Beshara, Inc., 75 AD3d 733, 736 [2010]; see Allstate Ins. Co. v Babylon Chrysler Plymouth, 45 AD2d 969 [1974]; U.S. Underwriters Ins. Co. v Greenwald, 31 Misc 3d 1206[A], 2010 NY Slip Op 52394[U] [2010], affd 82 AD3d 411 [2011]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court, upon granting that branch of Providence’s motion which was to voluntarily discontinue its causes of action in action Nos. 1 and 3, also should have granted that branch of Providence’s motion which was, in effect, to dismiss the defendants’ counterclaim asserted against it in action No. 3.

Moreover, the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in granting the defendants’ cross motion for an award of costs and an attorney’s fee against Providence pursuant to CPLR 8303-a and 22 NYCRR 130-1.1. The defendants failed to demonstrate that Providence’s conduct was frivolous within the meaning of 22 NYCRR 130-1.1 (c), or that its actions were commenced or continued in bad faith (see CPLR 8303-a [c] [i]; Broich v Nabisco, Inc., 2 AD3d 474, 475 [2003]; Karnes v City of White Plains, 237 AD2d 574, 576 [1997]). We note that the Supreme Court did not follow the proper procedure for imposing costs and an attorney’s fee, since it failed to specify in a written decision the conduct upon which the award was based and the reasons why it found the conduct to be frivolous (see 22 NYCRR 130-1.2; Badillo v Badillo, 62 AD3d 635, 636 [2009]; Hamilton v Cordero, 10 AD3d 702, 703 [2004]). Dillon, J.P., Covello, Chambers and Roman, JJ., concur.

—[*1] Jaffe & Koumourdas, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Jean H. Kang of counsel), for appellant.

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

In an action to recover no-fault medical payments under two insurance policies, the defendant appeals (1) from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Winslow, J.), entered July 19, 2010, which granted the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment on the complaint and denied its cross motion for summary judgment, in effect, dismissing the complaint, and (2) as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the same court entered February 7, 2011, as denied those branches of its motion which were for leave to renew its cross motion for summary judgment, in effect, dismissing the complaint and its opposition to the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment on the complaint.

Ordered that the order entered July 19, 2010, is modified, on the law, by deleting the provision thereof granting the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment on the complaint, and substituting therefor a provision denying the plaintiffs’ motion; as so modified, the order entered July 19, 2010, is affirmed, without costs or disbursements; and it is further,

Ordered that the appeal from so much of the order entered February 7, 2011, as denied that branch of the defendant’s motion which was for leave to renew its opposition to the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment is dismissed as academic, without costs or disbursements, in light of our determination on the appeal from the order entered July 19, 2010; and it is further,

Ordered that the order entered February 7, 2011, is affirmed insofar as reviewed, without costs or disbursements.

The plaintiffs made a prima facie showing of their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on their causes of action to recover no-fault insurance medical payments by submitting evidence that the necessary billing documents had been mailed and received by the defendant insurer, which failed to either pay or deny the claims within the requisite 30-day period (see Insurance Law § 5106 [a]; 11 NYCRR 65-3.8 [a] [1]; Westchester Med. Ctr. v GMAC Ins. Co. Online, Inc., 80 AD3d 603, 604 [2011]; Westchester Med. Ctr. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 51 AD3d 1014, 1017 [2008]). However, in opposition, the defendant raised triable issues of fact with respect to whether the limits [*2]of the policy at issue in the first cause of action were exhausted through the payment of claims for prior services during a time that the 30-day period was tolled pursuant to the defendant’s request for additional verification (see 11 NYCRR 65-3.5 [b]; 65-3.8 [a] [1]; 65-3.15; Fair Price Med. Supply Corp. v Travelers Indem. Co., 10 NY3d 556, 563 [2008]; Westchester Med. Ctr. v Hartford Cas. Ins. Co., 58 AD3d 832, 833 [2009]; Montefiore Med. Ctr. v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 34 AD3d 771, 771-772 [2006]), and whether the claim at issue in the second cause of action was paid by the defendant, with appropriate overdue interest, prior to the commencement of this action (see Insurance Law § 5106 [a]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have denied the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment on the complaint. Because of the aforementioned issues of fact, the Supreme Court properly denied the defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment, in effect, dismissing the complaint.

The Supreme Court also properly denied that branch of the defendant’s motion which was for leave to renew its cross motion for summary judgment, in effect, dismissing the complaint, as the defendant failed to offer a reasonable justification for its failure to submit the new facts at the time of the prior motion (see CPLR 2221 [e] [3]; Matter of Leone Props., LLC v Board of Assessors for Town of Cornwall, 81 AD3d 649, 652 [2011]; Greene v New York City Hous. Auth., 283 AD2d 458, 459 [2001]). Prudenti, P.J., Eng, Hall and Lott, JJ., concur.

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

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

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

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

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

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

—[*1] Joseph Henig, P.C., Bellmore, N.Y., for appellants. McDonnell & Adels, PLLC, Garden City, N.Y. (Jannine A. Gordineer of counsel), for respondent.

In an action to recover no-fault medical payments under an insurance contract, the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Murphy, J.), entered December 29, 2010, as denied that branch of their motion which was for summary judgment on the first cause of action.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, and that branch of the plaintiffs’ motion which was for summary judgment on the first cause of action is granted.

The plaintiffs made a prima facie showing that the plaintiff Nyack Hospital, as assignee of Rochelle Ferguson, was entitled to judgment as a matter of law on its cause of action to recover no-fault insurance medical payments by submitting evidence that the prescribed statutory billing form had been mailed and received by the defendant and that the defendant had failed to either pay or deny the claim within the requisite 30-day period (see Insurance Law § 5106 [a]; 11 NYCRR 65-3.5; Westchester Med. Ctr. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 81 AD3d 929 [2011]; Westchester Med. Ctr. v Lincoln Gen. Ins. Co., 60 AD3d 1045, 1045-1046 [2009]).

In opposition to the motion, the defendant failed to raise a triable issue of fact. The defendant acknowledged that it failed to timely deny that claim, but contended that it raised a triable issue of fact by submitting evidence which indicates that Ferguson intentionally caused her injury in an attempt to commit suicide. However, the failure to establish timely denial of the claim results in the preclusion of the defense that Ferguson’s allegedly intentional act was the cause of the accident and subject to exclusion under the insurance contract (see Presbyterian Hosp. in City of N.Y. v Maryland Cas. Co., 90 NY2d 274, 286 [1997]; Central Gen. Hosp. v Chubb Group of Ins. Cos., 90 NY2d 195 [1997]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was for summary judgment on the first cause of action.

In light of our determination, we need not address the plaintiffs’ remaining contention. Mastro, J.P., Leventhal, Austin and Cohen, JJ., concur.

—[*1] Joseph Henig, P.C., Bellmore, N.Y. (Marc Henig of counsel), for appellant.

Rossillo & Licata, LLP, Westbury, N.Y. (John J. Rossillo of counsel), for respondent.

In an action to recover no-fault medical payments under an insurance contract, the plaintiff, NYU-Hospital for Joint Diseases, as assignee of Gudrun Cancian, appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (McCarty III, J.), entered September 3, 2009, which denied its motion for summary judgment on the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

On August 2, 2008, Gudrun Cancian was hospitalized at NYU-Hospital for Joint Diseases (hereinafter the hospital) after being injured in an automobile accident. She had been driving a vehicle insured by the defendant, Esurance Insurance Company (hereinafter Esurance). On September 5, 2008, the hospital, as Cancian’s assignee, mailed, among other things, an NF-5 form to Esurance, seeking payment of Cancian’s hospital bill. Esurance issued a denial of claim, which incorrectly stated the amount of the claim and the amount in dispute. Esurance denied the claim, inter alia, because Cancian allegedly was intoxicated at the time of the accident.

The hospital then commenced this action seeking payment of its bill, and moved for summary judgment on the complaint arguing, among other things, that the denial of claim was untimely, fatally defective for the above-mentioned mistakes, and that Esurance’s defense that Cancian was intoxicated was unsupported by the evidence.

“A proper denial of [a] claim [for no-fault benefits] must include the information called for in the prescribed denial of claim form (see 11 NYCRR 65-3.4 [c] [11]) and must ‘promptly apprise the claimant with a high degree of specificity of the ground or grounds on which the disclaimer is predicated’ ” (St. Barnabas Hosp. v Allstate Ins. Co., 66 AD3d 996, 996 [2009], quoting Nyack Hosp. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 11 AD3d 664, 664 [2004]). A timely denial of a no-fault insurance medical claim alone does not, however, avoid preclusion where the “denial is factually insufficient, conclusory, vague or otherwise involves a defense which has no merit as a matter of law” (Nyack Hosp. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 11 AD3d at 665).

Here, the hospital established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law [*2]based on the untimeliness of the denial of claim. It submitted evidentiary proof that the prescribed statutory billing forms were mailed and received, and that payment of no-fault benefits was overdue (see St. Vincent’s Hosp. of Richmond v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 50 AD3d 1123 [2008]; Westchester Med. Ctr. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 44 AD3d 750, 752 [2007]; Nyack Hosp. v Metropolitan Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 16 AD3d 564 [2005]).

In opposition to the motion, however, Esurance raised a triable issue of fact as to whether the denial of claim was timely issued by submitting the affidavit of an employee with knowledge of its “standard office practices or procedures designed to ensure that items were properly addressed and mailed” (St. Vincent’s Hosp. of Richmond v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 50 AD3d at 1124), wherein he attested that a denial of claim was timely issued to the hospital. We note that while the denial of claim contained errors, they were not significant by themselves, and did not pose any possibility of confusion or prejudice to the hospital under the circumstances; thus, the denial was not rendered a nullity (see St. Barnabas Hosp. v Penrac, Inc., 79 AD3d 733, 734 [2010]; see also Westchester Med. Ctr. v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 77 AD3d 737, 738 [2010]).

Further, Esurance raised a triable issue of fact as to whether Cancian was “injured as a result of operating a motor vehicle while in an intoxicated condition” (Insurance Law § 5103 [b] [2]). Contrary to the hospital’s contention, the personal observations of the police officer present at the scene of the accident as recorded in the police accident report were properly considered by the Supreme Court under the business record exception to the hearsay rule (see CPLR 4518 [a]; Westchester Med. Ctr. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 44 AD3d at 753).

Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the hospital’s motion for summary judgment on the complaint. Prudenti, P.J., Angiolillo, Dickerson and Roman, JJ., concur.

—[*1] Jaffe & Koumourdas, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Thomas Torto and Jason Levine of counsel), for appellant.

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

In an action to recover no-fault benefits under an insurance contract, the defendant appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Lally, J.), entered May 20, 2010, which, upon an order of the same court entered May 7, 2010, granting the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and denying its cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, is in favor of the plaintiff and against it in the total sum of $22,446.23.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting, among other things, the requisite billing forms, an affidavit from its third-party biller, the certified mail receipt, and the signed return-receipt card referencing the patient and the forms, which demonstrated that the plaintiff mailed the necessary billing documents to the defendant, that the defendant received them, and that the payment of no-fault benefits was overdue (see New York Hosp. Med. Ctr. of Queens v Country Wide Ins. Co., 82 AD3d 723 [2011]; Hospital for Joint Diseases v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 44 AD3d 903, 904 [2007]; Westchester Med. Ctr. v Safeco Ins. Co. of Am., 40 AD3d 984 [2007]; New York Univ. Hosp. Rusk Inst. v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 39 AD3d 832 [2007]). In opposition, the defendant failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether it timely and effectively denied the plaintiff’s claim (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]). “A proper denial of claim must include the information called for in the prescribed denial of claim form” (Nyack Hosp. v Metropolitan Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 16 AD3d 564, 565 [2005]; see 11 NYCRR 65-3.4 [c] [11]; Nyack Hosp. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 11 AD3d 664, 664 [2004]). Here, even assuming that the denial of claim form issued by the defendant was timely and was properly mailed to the plaintiff, the form “was fatally defective in that it omitted numerous items of requested information, and thus was incomplete” (Nyack Hosp. v Metropolitan Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 16 AD3d at 565; see Westchester Med. Ctr. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 81 AD3d 929 [2011]; compare St. Barnabas Hosp. v Penrac, Inc., 79 AD3d 733 [2010]). The denial also incorrectly listed Raquel Uviles as the applicant for benefits instead of the plaintiff (see St. Vincent’s Hosp. & Med. Ctr. v New Jersey Mfrs. Ins. Co., 82 AD3d 871 [2011]; see also Nyack Hosp. v Metropolitan Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 16 [*2]AD3d at 565). Accordingly, even if the denial was timely mailed, it was fatally defective (see St. Vincent’s Hosp. & Med. Ctr. v New Jersey Mfrs. Ins. Co., 82 AD3d at 871; Westchester Med. Ctr. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 81 AD3d at 929; Nyack Hosp. v Metropolitan Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 16 AD3d at 565).

For the same reasons, the defendant, in support of its cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, failed to make a prima facie showing that it timely denied the claim.

The defendant’s contention that the action should be dismissed as premature is improperly raised for the first time on appeal, and therefore is not properly before this Court (see Matter of Panetta v Carroll, 62 AD3d 1010 [2009]; KPSD Mineola, Inc. v Jahn, 57 AD3d 853, 854 [2008]). Contrary to the defendant’s contention, it does not present a pure question of law appearing on the face of the record which could not have been avoided if raised at the proper juncture (see Matter of Panetta v Carroll, 62 AD3d at 1010; KPSD Mineola, Inc. v Jahn, 57 AD3d at 854). Accordingly, this argument may not be reached for the first time on appeal.

The parties’ remaining contentions are without merit or need not be reached in light of our determination. Covello, J.P., Eng, Chambers and Miller, JJ., concur.

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

Jaffe & Koumourdas, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Jean H. Kang of counsel), for respondent.

In an action to recover no-fault benefits under a contract of insurance, the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Murphy, J.), entered October 1, 2010, as denied the motion of the plaintiff New York Hospital Medical Center of Queens, as assignee of Merna Ishak, for summary judgment on the second cause of action.

Ordered that the appeal by the plaintiff Westchester Medical Center, as assignee of Chris Kang, is dismissed, without costs or disbursements, as that plaintiff is not aggrieved by the portion of the order appealed from (see CPLR 5511); and it is further,

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from by the plaintiff New York Hospital Medical Center of Queens, as assignee of Merna Ishak; and it is further,

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

The plaintiff New York Hospital Medical Center of Queens, as assignee of Merna Ishak (hereinafter the plaintiff), established, prima facie, its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the second cause of action by demonstrating that the necessary billing forms were mailed to and received by the defendant and that payment of no-fault benefits was overdue (see Insurance Law § 5106 [a]; 11 NYCRR 65-3.8 [a] [1]; Wyckoff Hgts. Med. Ctr. v Country-Wide Ins. Co., 71 AD3d 1009, 1010 [2010], lv granted 15 NY3d 709 [2010]; New York & Presbyt. Hosp. v Countrywide Ins. Co., 44 AD3d 729, 730 [2007]). However, in opposition, the defendant raised a triable issue of fact as to whether the plaintiff fully complied with the defendant’s demand for verification (see St. Barnabas Hosp. v American Tr. Ins. Co., 57 AD3d 517, 518 [2008]; Westchester Med. Ctr. v Allstate Ins. Co., 53 AD3d 481 [2008]; Mount Sinai Hosp. v Allstate Ins. Co., 25 AD3d 673, 674 [2006]). The defendant was not obligated to pay or deny the claim until all demanded verification was provided by the plaintiff (see St. Barnabas Hosp. v American Tr. Ins. Co., 57 AD3d at 518). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on the second cause of action. Dillon, J.P., Covello, Eng and Chambers, JJ., concur.