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

Teresa M. Spina, Woodbury, N.Y. (Jeanne M. Ortega 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 (Galasso, J.), entered December 17, 2009, which denied its motion for summary judgment on the complaint.

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

In opposition to the plaintiff’s prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (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]), the defendant failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether it properly denied the plaintiff’s claim for no-fault benefits based on the alleged intoxication of the plaintiff’s assignor at the time of the accident. Since the defendant failed to submit any evidence whatsoever from which the circumstances of the accident could be ascertained, the nature of the accident is unknown, and, thus, the defendant’s evidence, while presenting a factual question as to whether the plaintiff’s assignor was operating a vehicle in an intoxicated condition, was insufficient by itself to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the plaintiff’s assignor was “injured as a result of operating a motor vehicle while in an intoxicated condition” (Insurance Law § 5103 [b] [2] [emphasis added]; see 11 NYCRR 65-3.14 [b]; cf. Westchester Med. Ctr. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 51 AD3d at 1017; Westchester Med. Ctr. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 44 AD3d at 752; Lynch v Progressive Ins. Co., 12 AD3d 570 [2004]; Scahall v Unigard Ins. Co., 222 AD2d 1070 [1995]; Cernik v Sentry Ins., 131 AD2d 952 [1987]; McCarthy v Commercial Union Ins. Co., 194 Misc 2d 295, 297 [2002]). Accordingly, while, under the circumstances of this case, there is no merit to the plaintiff’s remaining contentions concerning the facial sufficiency of the form used to deny the claim and the Supreme Court’s consideration of certain uncertified medical records (see Westchester Med. Ctr. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 51 AD3d at 1017; Westchester Med. Ctr. v Allstate Ins. Co., 45 AD3d 579, 580 [2007]), its motion for summary judgment should nonetheless have been granted. Skelos, J.P., Santucci, Dickerson and Leventhal, JJ., concur.

—[*1] Abdella Law Offices, Gloversville (J. David Burke of counsel), for appellant.

Law Office of Taylor & Associates, Albany (Sean A. Tomko of counsel), for respondent.

Cardona, P.J. Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Aulisi, J.), entered October 20, 2009 in Fulton County, which granted petitioner’s application pursuant to CPLR 7503 to stay arbitration between the parties.

While respondent Marcia Malatino (hereinafter respondent) was returning to work after taking a break in the employer’s parking lot, she walked into a piece of sheet metal extending approximately five feet beyond the tailgate of a coworker’s parked pickup truck,^[FN1] sustaining facial lacerations and a broken nose. According to the record, the coworker had torn the sheet metal off a building on his property and planned to deliver it to a junkyard after work. [*2]

Thereafter, respondent settled with the coworker’s automobile liability insurer for $25,000—the policy limit—and received a lump-sum workers’ compensation award. Seeking additional compensation, respondent subsequently demanded arbitration as a named insured under the supplemental underinsured motorists provisions of an insurance policy issued by petitioner. Petitioner sought to stay arbitration on the grounds that respondent’s injuries did not, as required by the policy, arise out of the “ownership, maintenance or use” of the coworker’s motor vehicle and, alternatively, because respondent was injured as a result of the alleged negligence of a coworker, workers’ compensation was her exclusive remedy (see Workers’ Compensation Law § 29 [6]). Supreme Court, finding, among other things, that there was no use or operation of the vehicle, granted petitioner’s application, and this appeal ensued.

Initially, we note that the issue herein involves the right to arbitration under the specific terms of the parties’ supplemental underinsured motorists policy and not the application of any statutory no-fault provisions.^[FN2] A court may grant an application to stay arbitration “where ‘the particular claim sought to be arbitrated is outside [the] scope’ of the agreement to arbitrate” (Matter of Farm Family Cas. Ins. Co. [Trapani], 301 AD2d 740, 741 [2003], quoting Matter of County of Rockland [Primiano Constr. Co.], 51 NY2d 1, 7 [1980]). Generally, “policies of insurance are to be construed liberally in favor of the insured and strictly against the insurer” (Penna v Federal Ins. Co., 28 AD3d 731, 731 [2006]; see Government Empls. Ins. Co. v Kligler, 42 NY2d 863, 864 [1977]; see generally Turkow v Erie Ins. Co., 20 AD3d 649, 650 [2005]). Where ambiguity exists as to coverage, doubt should be resolved in favor of the insured (see Handelsman v Sea Ins. Co., 85 NY2d 96, 101 [1994]; Penna v Federal Ins. Co., 28 AD3d at 731). Supplemental underinsured motorists coverage policies, such as the one at issue herein, apply only when an insured’s injuries are “caused by an accident arising out of such [underinsured] motor vehicle’s ownership, maintenance or use” (11 NYCRR 60-2.3 [f] [II]; see Matter of Farm Family Cas. Ins. Co. [Trapani], 301 AD2d at 741). “Use” of a vehicle encompasses more than just driving, and extends to other incidental activities (see Rowell v Utica Mut. Ins. Co., 77 NY2d 636, 639 [1991]). Furthermore, the use of the underinsured vehicle must be a proximate cause of the injuries for which coverage is sought (see Matter of Farm Family Cas. Ins. Co. [Trapani], 301 AD2d at 741).

Clearly, the pickup truck was not being operated at the time of the accident—having been parked in the employer’s lot when the coworker arrived at work. The focus herein, however, is whether the vehicle was in use so as to fall within the scope of the terms of the supplemental underinsured motorists policy. Here, at the time of respondent’s injury, the pickup truck was being used by the coworker to transport the sheet metal to the junkyard after work. Construing the language of the supplemental underinsured motorists policy liberally “in favor of the insured and strictly against the insurer” (Penna v Federal Ins. Co., 28 AD3d at 731), and given the causal connection between the use of the pickup truck to transport the sheet metal and respondent’s injuries, we find that respondent’s request for arbitration falls within the scope of the parties’ agreement. Accordingly, under the particular circumstances herein, the application for a stay of arbitration should have been denied.

Furthermore, the record is clear that the use of the pickup truck to transport the sheet [*3]metal was unrelated to the coworker’s employment and, therefore, the exclusive remedy provision of Workers’ Compensation Law § 29 (6) is inapplicable and cannot form the basis for granting the stay of arbitration.

Spain, Stein and Egan Jr., JJ., concur.

McCarthy, J. (dissenting). Because respondent Marcia Malatino (hereinafter respondent) did not sustain injuries arising out of the ownership, maintenance or use of a motor vehicle, petitioner was entitled to a stay of arbitration.^[FN1] Respondent’s coworker parked his pickup truck in the employer’s parking lot in the morning and apparently intended to leave the vehicle there for his entire eight-hour shift. If respondent had walked into the parked truck itself, her injuries would not have arisen out of the use of the vehicle (see Wooster v Soriano, 167 AD2d 233, 234 [1990]; McConnell v Fireman’s Fund Am. Ins. Co., 49 AD2d 676, 677 [1975]). The same result should follow when she walked into materials protruding from the bed of the truck.

While “use” of a motor vehicle encompasses more than just driving and extends to other incidental activities (see Rowell v Utica Mut. Ins. Co., 77 NY2d 636, 639 [1991]), there are limits to that term and the corresponding insurance coverage.^[FN2] The majority holds that the truck here was being used to contain sheet metal until the coworker could transport it, rendering the vehicle in “use.” This broad finding places no parameters on the use of a vehicle. It is unclear if the majority considered that the truck was in use while containing the sheet metal only because the coworker intended to transport the sheet metal to the junkyard that same day, or if the truck would be considered in use as a vehicle if the sheet metal was placed there a year earlier and the coworker regularly parked his truck with metal protruding from his tailgate. Conversely, if the truck was never moved from the parking lot but was regularly utilized to store different materials in the same location, would the parked truck constantly be in use as a vehicle? Rather than [*4]expanding the application of the statute and regulation requiring coverage for injuries arising out of a “motor vehicle’s ownership, maintenance or use” (11 NYCRR 60-2.3 [f] [II]; see Insurance Law § 3420 [f] [1]), we should adhere to the current rule that looks to whether the “circumstances constituted an ‘on-going activity relating to the vehicle’ which would necessitate a conclusion that the vehicle was in use” (Trentini v Metropolitan Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 2 AD3d 957, 958 [2003], lv dismissed 2 NY3d 823 [2004], quoting Matter of Celona v Royal Globe Ins. Co., 85 AD2d 635, 636 [1981]; see Zaccari v Progressive Northwestern Ins. Co., 35 AD3d 597, 599-600 [2006]; Wooster v Soriano, 167 AD2d at 234).

In Sullivan v Barry Scott Agency, Inc. (23 AD3d 889 [2005]), this Court held that a plaintiff’s back injury caused by lifting a heavy box was not related to the use of a motor vehicle, even though he was standing in a delivery van when unloading the box. We found the proximity to the vehicle “wholly incidental,” “[a]s plaintiff’s injuries would have occurred even if he had been standing on the ground and lifting the box” (id. at 890; see Sochinski v Bankers & Shippers Ins. Co., 221 AD2d 889, 889 [1995]; United Servs. Auto. Assn. v Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 75 AD2d 1022, 1022 [1980]; cf. Walton v Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co., 88 NY2d 211, 215 [1996]). Similarly, respondent here would have received the same injuries had the sheet metal she walked into been protruding from any object other than a vehicle. Under the circumstances, there was no ongoing activity related to the parked truck—in its capacity as a motor vehicle, rather than as a storage bin for sheet metal—so as to necessitate a conclusion that the vehicle was in use when respondent was injured (see Sullivan v Barry Scott Agency, Inc., 23 AD3d at 890; Matter of New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. [Hayden—Allstate Ins. Co.], 209 AD2d 927, 928 [1994] [staying arbitration where “accident did not arise out of the inherent nature of the automobile as such”]; Reisinger v Allstate Ins. Co., 58 AD2d 1028, 1028 [1977], affd 44 NY2d 881 [1978]; McConnell v Fireman’s Fund Am. Ins. Co., 49 AD2d at 677). Accordingly, petitioner was entitled to a stay of arbitration because its insurance policy does not provide coverage for respondent’s injuries.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and application denied.

Footnotes

Footnote 1: No red flag was placed on the sheet metal in accordance with Vehicle and Traffic Law § 375 (27) despite the fact that it protruded more than four feet beyond the tailgate of the pickup.

Footnote 2: Thus, we do not find the dissent’s reference to cases interpreting no-fault provisions in insurance policies to be applicable.

Footnote 1: The parties do not contend that respondent’s accident arose from ownership or maintenance of a motor vehicle, so we likewise focus on whether her injuries arose from the vehicle’s use.

Footnote 2: The majority asserts that case law requires us to strictly construe the insurance policy against the insurer (see Penna v Federal Ins. Co., 28 AD3d 731, 731 [2006]). While that is the general rule—based upon a canon of contract interpretation that courts construe terms against the drafter (see Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am. v Schaefer, 70 NY2d 888, 890 [1987])—it is unfair to apply that rule where, as here, the provision at issue was not written by the insurer, but was drafted by the Insurance Department, and its inclusion was mandated by law (see Insurance Law § 3420 [f] [1]; 11 NYCRR 60-2.3 [f]; see generally Walton v Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co., 88 NY2d 211, 214 [1996]). I therefore find cases interpreting mandatory no-fault provisions more pertinent.

—[*1] George C. Dinstber III, Cincinnatus, appellant pro se.

Goldberg & Segalla, L.L.P., Buffalo (Anthony L. Germano of counsel), for respondent.

Stein, J. Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Rumsey, J.), entered January 23, 2009 in Cortland County, which, among other things, granted defendant’s motion to extend its time to answer and to compel plaintiff to accept late service of the answer.

In January 2002, plaintiff notified defendant, his no-fault insurance carrier, of an accident wherein the car he was driving was struck from behind. Defendant denied coverage for the claim in July 2002. Almost six years later, plaintiff commenced this action for breach of contract and dealing in bad faith.

Plaintiff served a summons and verified complaint on the Insurance Department on July 29, 2008 pursuant to Insurance Law § 1212. However, defendant allegedly did not receive them until August 21, 2008. Although defendant served an answer on August 28, 2008, plaintiff rejected it because it was not verified. On September 4, 2008—one day after receiving plaintiff’s letter of rejection—defendant served a second answer, virtually identical to the first but properly verified, which was rejected by plaintiff as untimely. Defendant then promptly moved to extend its time to answer and to compel plaintiff to accept late service thereof. Plaintiff cross-moved for a default judgment. Supreme Court granted defendant’s motion—giving defendant 30 days to file, serve and file proof of service of the second answer—and denied plaintiff’s cross motion. Plaintiff now appeals and we affirm. [*2]

Pursuant to CPLR 3012 (d), Supreme Court has the discretion to permit late service of an answer upon the demonstration of a reasonable excuse for the delay or default (see Rickert v Chestara, 56 AD3d 941, 942 [2008]; Watson v Pollacchi, 32 AD3d 565, 565 [2006]). “To that end, ‘[w]hether there is a reasonable excuse for a default is a discretionary, sui generis determination to be made by the court based on all relevant factors, including the extent of the delay, whether there has been prejudice to the opposing party, whether there has been willfulness, and the strong public policy in favor of resolving cases on the merits’ ” (Rickert v Chestara, 56 AD3d at 942, quoting Harcztark v Drive Variety, Inc., 21 AD3d 876, 876-877 [2005]; see Watson v Pollacchi, 32 AD3d at 565). Also relevant is whether the untimely answer sets forth a meritorious defense to plaintiff’s complaint (see Rickert v Chestara, 56 AD3d at 942; Watson v Pollacchi, 32 AD3d at 565).

Here, contrary to plaintiff’s assertion, we find that defendant proffered both a reasonable excuse for its delay in serving a verified answer and a sufficiently meritorious defense to the claims. Defendant proffered several reasons for its delay. First, defendant submitted evidence that it did not actually receive the complaint from the Insurance Department until one week before the time to answer expired and that an incorrect date of service on the transmittal sheet caused further delay in the complaint being referred to counsel. After unsuccessfully attempting to contact plaintiff to obtain an extension of time to serve an answer, defendant effected such service one day after counsel’s receipt of the complaint. Secondly, defendant alleged law office failure in neglecting to include the verification with the initial answer, which was timely served. In our view, these circumstances established a reasonable excuse for the default (see CPLR 2005).

We also note that defendant’s answer set forth a myriad of defenses including, among others, failure to state a cause of action, failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the policy, fraud or perjury on plaintiff’s part and that the claim is time-barred. In addition, defendant’s attorney provided Supreme Court with the original denial of coverage letter, which set forth in detail the reasons why plaintiff’s claim for benefits was denied. Such assertions set forth a sufficiently meritorious defense for purposes of defendant’s motion (see Chase Manhattan Automotive Fin. Corp. v Allstate Ins. Co., 272 AD2d 772, 774-775 [2000]).

In view of defendant’s reasonable excuse for the default, the minimal delay, defendant’s expeditious motion to compel acceptance of the answer, the absence of proof that the default was willful or any indication that plaintiff was prejudiced by the delay, and the existence of an arguably meritorious defense, we conclude that Supreme Court’s decision to grant defendant’s motion to extend the time to answer and to compel plaintiff to accept service was a proper exercise of its discretion (see Rickert v Chestara, 56 AD3d at 942; Acker v VanEpps, 45 AD3d 1104, 1105, 1106 [2007]).

Plaintiff’s remaining contentions, to the extent they are properly before us, have been considered and found to be unavailing.

Cardona, P.J., Rose, McCarthy and Garry, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs.

—[*1] Smith & Laquercia, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Robert W. Napoles of counsel), for appellant.

Goidel & Siegel, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Andrew B. Siegel of counsel), for respondent Vitaly Polyakov.

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 to permanently stay arbitration of a claim for supplementary uninsured motorist benefits, New York Central Mutual Fire Insurance Company appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Balter, J.), dated June 17, 2009, which denied the petition and directed the parties to proceed to arbitration.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the petition is granted, and the arbitration is permanently stayed.

On September 1, 2007, the respondent Vitaly Polyakov (hereinafter Polyakov) was involved in a motor vehicle accident while driving a motorcycle which he owned. Polyakov’s motorcycle hit the rear end of the automobile of the respondent P. Tsismanakis while that automobile was stopped at a traffic light on Coney Island Avenue in Brooklyn. Polyakov reported to the police officer who responded to the scene that an unidentified vehicle struck his motorcycle causing him to swerve and hit the Tsismanakis vehicle in the rear. The police accident report did not list any insurance information for either the Tsismanakis vehicle or the motorcycle. However, at the time of the accident, the respondent Mikhail Polyakov (hereinafter the named insured), Polyakov’s father, had a policy of automobile insurance issued by the petitioner, New York Central Mutual Fire Insurance Company. The only vehicle named under that policy as a covered vehicle was a 2001 Nissan Maxima owned by the named insured.

By letter dated September 28, 2007 (hereinafter the notice of accident), Polyakov’s counsel advised the petitioner that Polyakov was involved in the subject accident while he “occupied [an] uninsured vehicle.” Polyakov advised the petitioner of his intent to file a claim for no-fault first-party benefits under the subject policy as the son of the named insured who was a member of the same household. Polyakov also advised of his intent to pursue claims “under the hit and run provisions of the [subject] policy.” Notably, in the application for no-fault benefits signed by Polyakov, he asserted, inter alia, that the owner of the motorcycle he was driving was “unknown at this time.” [*2]

By letter dated October 12, 2007 (hereinafter the denial of claim), from the petitioner’s counsel to Polyakov’s counsel, Polyakov was advised that his claim for benefits under the supplementary uninsured/underinsured motorists endorsement (hereinafter the SUM endorsement) of the subject policy was denied. The petitioner averred that its investigation revealed that Polyakov was the titled owner of the motorcycle which he was riding at the time of the accident. In addition, the motorcycle was not an insured vehicle under the subject policy. Consequently, the petitioner advised Polyakov that his claim for SUM benefits must be denied because the SUM endorsement excluded coverage for bodily injury to an insured while occupying a motor vehicle owned by that insured which was not insured under the subject policy. The petitioner also reserved its rights to deny coverage for any additional reasons that later came to its attention.

By demand for arbitration dated March 5, 2009, submitted to the American Arbitration Association, New York State Sum Arbitrational Tribunal, Polyakov made a demand on the petitioner for arbitration of his claim for SUM benefits. On or about March 23, 2009, the petitioner commenced this proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 to permanently stay arbitration of Polyakov’s claim. The Supreme Court denied the petition and directed the parties to proceed to arbitration. We reverse.

The policy language in question was not ambiguous, and the petitioner was entitled to have the provisions it relied on to disclaim coverage enforced (see Matter of USAA Cas. Ins. Co. v Hughes, 35 AD3d 486, 487-488 [2006]; see generally Baughman v Merchants Mut. Ins. Co., 87 NY2d 589, 592 [1996]; Government Empls. Ins. Co. v Kligler, 42 NY2d 863, 864-865 [1977]). The SUM endorsement under the subject policy provided, in relevant part, that “[t]his SUM coverage does not apply . . . [t]o bodily injury to an insured incurred while occupying a motor vehicle owned by that insured, if such motor vehicle is not insured for SUM coverage by the policy under which a claim is made.” This language is not ambiguous and the terms must be construed according to their plain and ordinary meaning. This policy exclusion unambiguously excluded from SUM coverage compensation for bodily injuries sustained by an insured when injured in a motor vehicle accident with an uninsured vehicle, while occupying a motor vehicle he or she owns, which vehicle was not covered under the policy (see Matter of USAA Cas. Ins. Co. v Hughes, 35 AD3d at 488; Matter of Utica Mut. Ins. Co. v Reid, 22 AD3d 127, 129 [2005]; Matter of New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. [Prehoda], 231 AD2d 829, 829-830 [1996]). There is no dispute that Polyakov, at the time of the accident, was occupying a vehicle, the motorcycle, that he owned but that was not covered under the subject policy.

In addition, contrary to Polyakov’s contention, the exclusion from coverage also would have been applicable under the mandatory uninsured motorists provision of the policy, which similarly provides that the petitioner does “not provide Uninsured Motorists Coverage for ‘bodily injury’ sustained: 1. By an insured while ‘occupying’, or when struck by, any motor vehicle owned by that ‘insured’ which is not insured for this coverage under this policy.” However, as the petitioner correctly argues, the mandatory uninsured motorists provision was removed from the subject policy by amendment pursuant to Section III of the Amendment of Policy Provisions—New York, and the SUM endorsement was added (see generally 11 NYCRR 60-2.3 [e]).

Accordingly, the petition should have been granted (see Matter of USAA Cas. Ins. Co. v Hughes, 35 AD3d at 488; Matter of Utica Mut. Ins. Co. v Reid, 22 AD3d at 129; Matter of New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. [Prehoda], 231 AD2d at 829-830; cf. Matter of Metropolitan Prop. & Liab. Co. v Feduchka, 135 AD2d 715 [1987]; see generally Government Empls. Ins. Co. v Kligler, 42 NY2d at 864-865).

The parties’ remaining contentions either are without merit or have been rendered academic. Skelos, J.P., Covello, Hall and Sgroi, JJ., concur.

—[*1] Lawrence L. Kaye, P.C., Brooklyn, N.Y., for appellant.

Martin, Fallon & MullÉ, Huntington, N.Y. (Richard C. MullÉ of counsel), for respondent.

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 to vacate an arbitration award dated October 29, 2008, as modified December 1, 2008, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Cohen, J.), entered July 9, 2009, which, upon a decision of the same court dated May 13, 2009, denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the judgment is modified, on the law, by adding thereto a provision pursuant to CPLR 7511 (e) confirming the award dated October 29, 2008, as modified December 1, 2008; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed, with costs payable by the petitioner.

“Consistent with the public policy in favor of arbitration, the grounds specified in CPLR 7511 for vacating or modifying a no-fault arbitration award are few in number and narrowly applied” (Matter of Mercury Cas. Co. v Healthmakers Med. Group, P.C., 67 AD3d 1017, 1017 [2009]). “An arbitration award can be vacated by a court pursuant to CPLR 7511 (b) on only three narrow grounds: if it is clearly violative of a strong public policy, if it is totally or completely irrational, or if it manifestly exceeds a specific, enumerated limitation on the arbitrator’s power” (Matter of Erin Constr. & Dev. Co., Inc. v Meltzer, 58 AD3d 729, 729 [2009]; see 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, 79 [2003]; Matter of Board of Educ. of Arlington Cent. School Dist. v Arlington Teachers Assn., 78 NY2d 33, 37 [1991]; Cifuentes v Rose & Thistle, Ltd., 32 AD3d 816 [2006]; Matter of Rockland County Bd. of Coop. Educ. Servs. v BOCES Staff Assn., 308 AD2d 452, 453 [2003]). “An award is irrational if there is ‘no proof whatever to justify the award’ ” (Matter of Erin Constr. & Dev. Co., Inc. v Meltzer, 58 AD3d at 730, quoting Matter of Peckerman v D & D Assoc., 165 AD2d 289, 296 [1991]). “Even if the arbitrators misapply substantive rules of law or make an error of fact, unless one of the three narrow grounds applies in the particular case, the award will not be vacated” (Matter of Erin Constr. & Dev. Co., Inc. v Meltzer, 58 AD3d at 730; see Wien & Malkin LLP v Helmsley-Spear, Inc., 6 NY3d 471 [2006]; Matter of Silverman [Benmor Coats], 61 NY2d 299, 308 [1984]; Matter of Sprinzen [Nomberg], 46 NY2d 623, 629 [1979]; Cifuentes v Rose & Thistle, Ltd., 32 AD3d at 816). “An arbitrator is not bound by principles of substantive law or rules of evidence, and may do justice and apply his or her own sense of law and equity to the facts as he or she finds them to be” (Matter of Erin Constr. & Dev. Co., Inc. v Meltzer, 58 AD3d at 730; see Matter of Silverman [Benmor Coats], [*2]61 NY2d at 308).

Here, the petitioner failed to demonstrate the existence of any of the statutory grounds for vacating the arbitrator’s award. Contrary to the petitioner’s contention, the arbitrator’s award, as modified, finds evidentiary support in the record and was rationally based (see Matter of American Express Prop. Cas. Co. v Vinci, 63 AD3d 1055, 1055 [2009]; Matter of Mangano v United States Fire Ins. Co., 55 AD3d 916, 917 [2008]). In addition, even if the arbitrator failed to consider specified evidence, vacatur of the award would not be warranted (see Matter of American Express Prop. Cas. Co. v Vinci, 63 AD3d at 1056; see also Montanez v New York City Hous. Auth., 52 AD3d 338, 339 [2008]).

Upon denying a motion to vacate or modify an arbitration award, the court must confirm the award (see CPLR 7511 [e]; Matter of Mercury Cas. Co. v Healthmakers Med. Group, P.C., 67 AD3d at 1017-1018). Thus, given this Court’s affirmance of the Supreme Court’s denial of the petition to vacate or modify the award, the award must be confirmed (see CPLR 7511 [e]). Covello, J.P., Santucci, Angiolillo and Dickerson, JJ., concur.

—[*1] David J. Tetlak, Huntington Station, N.Y. (Albert J. Galatan of counsel), for appellant.

Epstein & Rayhill, Elmsford, N.Y. (David M. Heller of counsel), for proposed additional respondent-respondent.

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75, inter alia, to permanently stay arbitration of claims for uninsured motorist benefits, the petitioner appeals (1), as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Lefkowitz, J.), entered May 13, 2009, as denied, without a hearing, that branch of the petition which was to permanently stay arbitration, and (2) from an order of the same court entered July 20, 2009, which denied its motion, denominated as one for leave to renew and reargue, but which was, in actuality, for leave to reargue.

Ordered that the appeal from the order entered July 20, 2009, is dismissed, as no appeal lies from an order denying leave to reargue; and it is further,

Ordered that the order entered May 13, 2009, is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Westchester County, for an evidentiary hearing to determine whether Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance Company validly disclaimed coverage of the offending vehicle for the subject accident, and thereafter, for a new determination of that branch of the petition which was to permanently stay arbitration; and it is further,

Ordered that one bill of costs is awarded to the appellant, payable by the respondents-respondents and proposed additional respondent-respondent.

The petitioner AutoOne Insurance Company made a prima facie showing that the offending vehicle was insured by Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance Company (hereinafter Nationwide) through the submission of a police accident report containing the vehicle’s insurance code (see Matter of Continental Ins. Co. v Biondo, 50 AD3d 1034 [2008]; Matter of State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v Mazyck, 48 AD3d 580, 581 [2008]; Matter of Mercury Ins. Group v Ocana, 46 AD3d 561, 562 [2007]; Matter of Utica Mut. Ins. Co. v Colon, 25 AD3d 617, 618 [2006]; Matter of AIU Ins. Co. v Nunez, 17 AD3d 668, 669 [2005]; Matter of Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co. v Beliard, 256 AD2d 579, 580 [1998]).

In opposition to the petition, Nationwide submitted evidence that it had disclaimed coverage for the offending vehicle based upon its insured’s failure to cooperate in the investigation of the [*2]subject accident. However, since a disclaimer based upon lack of cooperation penalizes the injured party for the actions of the insured and “frustrates the policy of this State that innocent victims of motor vehicle accidents be recompensed for the injuries inflicted upon them,” an insurer seeking to disclaim for noncooperation has a heavy burden of proof (Thrasher v United States Liab. Ins. Co., 19 NY2d 159, 168 [1967]; see Continental Cas. Co. v Stradford, 11 NY3d 443, 450 [2008]). To sustain its burden of establishing lack of cooperation, the insurer must demonstrate that “it acted diligently in seeking to bring about the insured’s co-operation . . . that the efforts employed by the insurer were reasonably calculated to obtain the insure[d]’s co-operation . . . and that the attitude of the insured, after his co-operation was sought, was one of ‘willful and avowed obstruction’ ” (Thrasher v United States Liab. Ins. Co., 19 NY2d at 168, quoting Coleman v New Amsterdam Cas. Co., 247 NY 271, 276 [1928]; see Matter of State Farm Indem. Co. v Moore, 58 AD3d 429, 430 [2009]; Matter of State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v Campbell, 44 AD3d 1059 [2007]; Matter of Eveready Ins. Co. v Mack, 15 AD3d 400, 401 [2005]). Here, while Nationwide’s disclaimer letter and evidentiary proof that its insured failed to attend an examination under oath were sufficient to raise an issue of fact warranting a hearing, these submissions were insufficient to establish the validity of the disclaimer as a matter of law (see Matter of Mercury Ins. Group. v Ocana, 46 AD3d 561, 563; Matter of Allstate Ins. Co. v Anderson, 303 AD2d 496, 497 [2003]; Matter of New York Cent. Mut. Ins. Co. v Davalos, 39 AD3d 654, 656 [2007]; Matter of Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co. v Beliard, 256 AD2d 579, 580 [1998]). In this regard, we note that Nationwide’s letters demanding that its insured appear at an examination under oath made reference to his purported status as a claimant for no-fault benefits, and warned him that the failure to appear could result in the denial of such benefits, despite the fact that there is no indication that the insured was injured in the accident and sought no-fault benefits. Under these circumstances, the Supreme Court should not have determined that Nationwide validly disclaimed coverage without conducting a hearing. Accordingly, we remit this matter to the Supreme Court, Westchester County, for an evidentiary hearing to determine the issue of whether Nationwide validly disclaimed coverage, and thereafter, for a new determination of that branch of the petition which was to permanently stay arbitration. Covello, J.P., Miller, Balkin and Chambers, JJ., concur.

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

Joseph Henig, P.C., Bellmore, N.Y. (Kelly Caputo of counsel), for respondent.

In an action to recover no-fault medical payments under two insurance contracts, the defendant appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Phelan, J.), entered June 4, 2009, which, upon an order of the same court entered May 14, 2009, granting that branch of the plaintiffs’ motion which was for summary judgment on the complaint insofar as asserted by the plaintiff New York and Presbyterian Hospital, as assignee of Joaquin Benitez, and denying that branch of the defendant’s cross motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted by that plaintiff, is in favor of that plaintiff and against it in the principal sum of $56,235.43.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff New York and Presbyterian Hospital, as assignee of Joaquin Benitez (hereinafter the hospital), established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that the necessary billing forms were mailed to and received by the defendant Country-Wide Insurance Company (hereinafter the insurer) and that payment of no-fault benefits was overdue (see Insurance Law § 5106 [a]; 11 NYCRR 65-3.8 [a] [1]; New York & Presbyt. Hosp. v Countrywide Ins. Co., 44 AD3d 729, 730 [2007]; New York & Presbyt. Hosp. v Selective Ins. Co. of Am., 43 AD3d 1019, 1020 [2007]; Westchester Med. Ctr. v Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 40 AD3d 981, 981-982 [2007]; Nyack Hosp. v Metropolitan Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 16 AD3d 564 [2005]; see generally Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 325 [1986]).

In opposition, the insurer failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Contrary to the insurer’s contention, the hospital’s submission of a completed hospital facility form (NYS form N-F 5) within 45 days after services were rendered satisfied the written notice requirement set forth in 11 NYCRR 65-1.1 (see 11 NYCRR 65-3.3 [d]; cf. New York & Presbyt. Hosp. v American Tr. Ins. Co., 45 AD3d 822, 823 [2007]; St. Vincent’s Hosp. & Med. Ctr. v Country Wide Ins. Co., 24 AD3d 748, 749 [2005]). [*2]

Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the plaintiffs’ motion which was for summary judgment on the complaint insofar as asserted by the hospital and denied that branch of the insurer’s cross motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted by the hospital. Mastro, J.P., Leventhal, Lott and Austin, JJ., concur.

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

Robert B. Taylor, New Rochelle, N.Y., for respondent.

In an action to recover first-party no-fault benefits pursuant to a policy of insurance, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Kelly, J.), dated February 27, 2009, which denied its motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (2) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction or, in the alternative, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for a new determination of the motion following a prompt application by the plaintiff to the Workers’ Compensation Board to determine his rights under the Workers’ Compensation Law.

“[P]rimary jurisdiction with respect to determinations as to the applicability of the Workers’ Compensation Law has been vested in the Workers’ Compensation Board and . . . it is therefore inappropriate for the courts to express views with respect thereto pending determination by the board” (Botwinick v Ogden, 59 NY2d 909, 911 [1983]; see O’Rourke v Long, 41 NY2d 219 [1976]; Catapane v Half Hollow Hills Cent. School Dist., 45 AD3d 517 [2007]). In this case, the defendant’s motion presented factual questions as to the plaintiff’s “status as either an independent contractor, as he claims he is, or as an employee of” a car service dispatch base, as the defendant claims (Arvatz v Empire Mut. Ins. Co., 171 AD2d 262, 269 [1991]). Resolution of these questions “is best suited for determination by the [Workers’ Compensation] Board, given its expertise in the area” (id. at 269). Accordingly, prior to rendering a determination on the motion, the Supreme Court should have referred the matter to the Workers’ Compensation Board for a hearing and determination as to whether the plaintiff is relegated to benefits under the Workers’ Compensation Law (see Catapane v Half Hollow Hills Cent. School Dist., 45 AD3d at 518-519; Arvatz v Empire Mut. Ins. Co., 171 AD2d at 269). Covello, J.P., Miller, Dickerson and Belen, JJ., concur.

—[*1] McDonnell & Adels, PLLC, Garden City, N.Y. (Martha S. Henley of counsel), for appellant.

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

In an action to recover no-fault medical benefits under an insurance contract, the defendant appeals from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Feinman, J.), entered January 14, 2009, which, upon a decision of the same court dated December 3, 2008, granted the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on the complaint, in effect, denied the defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and is in favor of the plaintiff and against it in the principal sum of $32,086.70.

Ordered that the order and judgment is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is denied, the cross motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

In support of its cross motion, the defendant made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that the accident in which the plaintiff’s assignor was injured was not an insured incident (see Central Gen. Hosp. v Chubb Group of Ins. Cos., 90 NY2d 195, 199 [1997]; see generally Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320 [1986]). In opposition to the defendant’s prima facie showing, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, the defense of lack of coverage is not precluded by the defendant’s failure to pay or deny the subject no-fault claim within the requisite 30-day period (see Hospital for Joint Diseases v Travelers Prop. Cas. Ins. Co., 9 NY3d 312, 318 [2007]; Central Gen. Hosp. v Chubb Group of Ins. Co., 90 NY2d at 199).

Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have denied the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on the complaint, and granted the defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

The plaintiff’s remaining contentions are without merit. Rivera, J.P., Dillon, Miller and Roman, JJ., concur.

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

Callan, Koster, Brady & Brennan, LLP, Uniondale, N.Y. (Michael P. Kandler and Eric L. Shoikhetman of counsel), for respondent.

In an action to recover no-fault medical benefits under an insurance contract, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Iannacci, J.), entered March 6, 2009, as granted the defendant’s motion to vacate a clerk’s judgment of the same court entered September 4, 2008, which, upon the defendant’s failure to appear or answer the complaint, was in its favor and against the defendant in the principal sum of $19,325.61 and, in effect, denied, as academic, its motion to hold the defendant in contempt.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, on the facts, and in the exercise of discretion, with costs, the defendant’s motion to vacate the clerk’s judgment is denied, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Nassau County, for a determination on the merits of the plaintiff’s motion to hold the defendant in contempt.

A defendant seeking to vacate a judgment entered upon its default in appearing and answering the complaint must demonstrate a reasonable excuse for its delay in appearing and answering, as well as the existence of a meritorious defense to the action (see CPLR 5015 [a] [1]; Eugene Di Lorenzo, Inc. v A.C. Dutton Lbr. Co., 67 NY2d 138, 141 [1986]; Verde Elec. Corp. v Federal Ins. Co., 50 AD3d 672, 672-673 [2008]). The Special Deputy Superintendent of the State of New York Insurance Department acknowledged service upon him of the summons and complaint in this matter and notified the defendant, through Debra Sutton at its Pennsylvania office, of service as effected above (see Insurance Law § 1212; Montefiore Med. Ctr. v Auto One Ins. Co., 57 AD3d 958, 959 [2008]). In response, the defendant failed to meet its burden of showing a reasonable excuse for its failure to timely appear or answer the complaint and the existence of a meritorious defense. The affidavit of a senior claims examiner employed in the defendant’s Texas office averred that there was no record of the summons and complaint in the defendant’s computer system, but failed to demonstrate any knowledge of the office procedures employed in the handling of a summons and complaint received at the defendant’s Pennsylvania office. Thus, that affidavit was insufficient to show that the failure to timely appear and answer was due to a clerical error which caused the summons and complaint to be overlooked (see Montefiore Med. Ctr. v Auto One Ins. Co., [*2]57 AD3d at 959; New York & Presbyt. Hosp. v Allstate Ins. Co., 29 AD3d 968 [2006]; Kaperonis v Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 254 AD2d 334 [1998]; cf. Hospital for Joint Diseases v Lincoln Gen. Ins. Co., 55 AD3d 543, 544 [2008]).

Furthermore, the defendant failed to set forth facts from an individual with personal knowledge sufficient to demonstrate the existence of a meritorious defense. The affidavit of the plaintiff’s biller showed that the forms N-F5 and UB-92 relating to this matter were mailed on April 23, 2008, and signed for by the defendant on April 28, 2008. At that time, according to the defendant’s own records, there were still sufficient funds remaining under the policy to pay this bill (see 11 NYCRR 65-3.15; Nyack Hosp. v General Motors Acceptance Corp., 8 NY3d 294 [2007]). In response, the defendant offered only the same aforementioned affidavit, which also averred that there was no record of the bill in question in the defendant’s computer system. This was insufficient for a similar reason; that is, the affiant failed to show any knowledge of the office procedures employed in the handling of billing forms received at the defendant’s Pennsylvania office (see St. Barnabas Hosp. v American Tr. Ins. Co., 57 AD3d 517 [2008]; New York & Presbyt. Hosp. v Allstate Ins. Co., 29 AD3d at 968; see generally New York Hosp. Med. Ctr. of Queens v Insurance Co. of State of Pa., 16 AD3d 391, 392 [2005]; Peacock v Kalikow, 239 AD2d 188, 190 [1997]; cf. St. Vincent’s Hosp. of Richmond v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 50 AD3d 1123 [2008]). Accordingly, the defendant’s motion to vacate the judgment entered upon its failure to appear or answer should have been denied.

The Supreme Court, in effect, denied, as academic, the plaintiff’s motion to hold the defendant in contempt. In light of our determination, we remit the matter to the Supreme Court, Nassau County, for a determination on the merits of the plaintiff’s motion. Fisher, J.P., Florio, Angiolillo, Eng and Roman, JJ., concur.