—[*1] Richard A. Dubi, P.C., Dix Hills, N.Y., for appellants.

McDonnell & Adels, P.C., Garden City, N.Y. (Korri Abrams Frampton and Martha Henley of counsel), for respondents.

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for common-law fraud and unjust enrichment and for a judgment declaring that the plaintiffs have no obligation to pay no-fault claims submitted by the professional corporation defendants, the defendants David Stemerman and Proscan Imaging, P.C., appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Murphy, J.), entered August 14, 2007, as denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them and granted that branch of the plaintiffs’ cross motion which was for discovery of certain financial documents.

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

The plaintiff One Beacon Insurance Group, LLC, and its subsidiaries and affiliates (hereinafter the plaintiffs), are providers of automobile insurance policies which include coverage under the “no-fault” insurance law (Insurance Law § 5101, et seq.). The plaintiffs commenced this action against numerous professional medical service corporations (hereinafter the PCs), management companies, and the individuals who owned them, and licensed healthcare professionals, alleging that the PCs were fraudulently incorporated in the names of licensed healthcare professionals while, in fact, the PCs were owned, operated, and controlled by unlicensed persons and their management companies in violation of applicable statutes and regulations. The plaintiffs, inter alia, seek repayment of no-fault claims already paid to the PCs and a judgment declaring that they are not obligated to pay outstanding claims. The defendants David Stemerman and his radiology practice, Proscan Imaging, P.C. (hereinafter Proscan) (hereinafter together the appellants), moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them, and the Supreme [*2]Court denied their motion, finding the existence a triable issue of fact as to whether Proscan was fraudulently incorporated.

Applicable provisions of the no-fault law require insurers to reimburse patients or their medical provider assignees for “basic economic loss” (Insurance Law § 5102 [a] [1]). A provider of healthcare services is not eligible for reimbursement, however, “if the provider fails to meet any applicable New York State or local licensing requirement necessary to perform such service in New York” (11 NYCRR 65-3.16 [a] [12]). The Court of Appeals has interpreted 11 NYCRR 65-3.16 (a) (12) to allow insurance carriers to withhold reimbursement for no-fault claims from fraudulently licensed medical corporations and to “look beyond the face of licensing documents to identify willful and material failure to abide by state and local law” (State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v Mallela, 4 NY3d 313, 321 [2005]). State law mandates that professional service corporations be owned and controlled only by licensed professionals (see Business Corporation Law § 1503 [a]; §§ 1507, 1508), and that licensed professionals render the services provided by such corporations (see Business Corporation Law § 1504 [a]).

Here, the appellants made a prima facie showing of their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting evidence that Stemerman, a licensed physician, was the sole shareholder of Proscan, performed or oversaw all medical services provided by Proscan, and was the sole signatory on Proscan’s bank account.

However, in opposition to the motion, the plaintiffs submitted sufficient evidentiary proof to raise an issue of fact as to whether Proscan was actually controlled by a management company owned by unlicensed individuals in violation of the Business Corporation Law (see State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v Mallela, 4 NY3d at 320-321; Montgomery Med., P.C. v State Farm Ins. Co., 12 Misc 3d 1169[A], 2006 NY Slip Op 51116[U] [2006]; A.T. Med., P.C. v State Farm Mut. Ins. Co., 10 Misc 3d 568, 569 [2005]; cf. A.B. Med. Servs. PLLC v Prudential Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 11 Misc 3d 137[A], 2006 NY Slip Op 50504[U] [2006]). Accordingly, the appellants’ motion for summary judgment was properly denied with respect to all three causes of action, which allege fraudulent incorporation.

The Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the plaintiffs’ cross motion which was for disclosure of certain financial documents. Contrary to the appellants’ contention, the plaintiffs were not required to make a showing of “good cause” for such disclosure (State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v Mallela, 4 NY3d at 322; see Matter of Andrew Carothers, M.D., P.C. v Insurance Cos. Represented by Bruno, Gerbino & Soriano LLP, 13 Misc 3d 970, 972-973 [2006]), as the documents were “material and necessary in the prosecution” of this action (see CPLR 3101 [a]). Spolzino, J.P., Santucci, Eng and Leventhal, JJ., concur.

—[*1] Stern & Montana, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Richard Montana of counsel), for appellant.

Joseph Henig, P.C., Bellmore, N.Y. (Mark Green of counsel), for respondent.

In an action to recover no fault benefits under an insurance contract, the defendant appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (O’Connell, J.), dated September 12, 2007, as granted the plaintiff’s motion 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 the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on the first cause of action is denied.

The plaintiff made a prima facie showing of entitlement to summary judgment on the first cause of action to recover no fault benefits on behalf of its assignor, Vincent Dailey, by demonstrating that the prescribed statutory billing forms were mailed to and received by the defendant and that payment was overdue (see Insurance Law § 5106 [a]; 11 NYCRR 65-3.8 [a]; Westchester Med. Ctr. v AIG, Inc., 36 AD3d 900 [2007]; Nyack Hosp. v Metropolitan Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 16 AD3d 564 [2005]). In opposition, however, the defendant raised a triable issue of fact as to whether the plaintiff complied with the defendant’s timely and properly sent verification requests seeking information regarding Vincent Dailey’s toxicology report. Accordingly, the plaintiff was not entitled to summary judgment on the first cause of action (see Insurance Law § 5106 [a]; 11 NYCRR 65-3.8 [a] [1], [2]; Westchester Med. Ctr. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 44 AD3d 750 [2007]; Montefiore Med. Ctr. v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 34 AD3d 771 [2006]; Hospital for Joint Diseases v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 8 AD3d 533 [2004]; St. Vincent’s Hosp. of Richmond v American Tr. Ins. Co., 299 AD2d 338 [2002]). Fisher, J.P., Santucci, Angiolillo and McCarthy, JJ., concur.

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

D’Ambrosio & D’Ambrosio, P.C., Irvington, N.Y. (John P. D’Ambrosio of counsel), for respondent.

Motion by the respondent for leave to reargue an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Galasso, J.), dated April 5, 2007, which was determined by decision and order of this Court dated December 11, 2007, or, in the alternative, for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals from the decision and order of this Court.

Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and the papers filed in opposition thereto, it is

Ordered that the branch of the motion which is for leave to reargue is granted; and it is further,

Ordered that the motion is otherwise denied; and it is further,

Ordered that upon reargument, the decision and order of this Court dated December 11, 2007 (see Westchester Med. Ctr. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 46 AD3d 675 [2007]), is recalled and vacated, and the following decision and order is substituted therefor: [*2]

In an action to recover no-fault medical payments under insurance contracts, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Galasso, J.), dated April 5, 2007, which denied its motion for summary judgment on its first cause of action, and conditionally granted the defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the first cause of action. Presiding Justice Prudenti has been substituted for former Justice Goldstein (see 22 NYCRR 670.1 [c]).

Ordered that the order is modified, on the law, by deleting the provision thereof conditionally granting the defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the first cause of action and substituting therefor a provision denying the cross motion; as so modified, the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

On March 24, 2006 Michael Forthmuller was seriously injured when he lost control of his vehicle and crashed into a telephone pole. Immediately after the accident, Forthmuller was transported to Sound Shore Medical Center (hereinafter Sound Shore), where he underwent emergency surgery. Forthmuller was then transferred to the plaintiff hospital, where he remained hospitalized for approximately one month.

On or about May 4, 2006, the plaintiff, as Forthmuller’s assignor, sent the defendant, inter alia, a hospital facility form (NYS Form N-F5) seeking payment of its hospital bill. The defendant received the hospital facility form on May 8, 2006. Three days later, on May 11, 2006, the defendant sent the plaintiff a letter indicating that benefits remained delayed pending receipt of Forthmuller’s medical records, which had been previously requested. The defendant alleges that after it received the plaintiff’s medical records on May 15, 2006, it learned that Forthmuller had first been treated after the accident at Sound Shore. Accordingly, on May 20, 2006, the defendant sent Sound Shore a verification request seeking its medical records pertaining to Forthmuller’s treatment, including any blood alcohol serum toxicology test results. The defendant received Sound Shore’s medical records on June 29, 2006 and on July 12, 2006 it denied the plaintiff’s claim upon the ground that Forthmuller was driving while intoxicated at the time of the accident.

Prior to receiving the defendant’s denial of the claim, the plaintiff commenced this action seeking, in its first cause of action, to recover payment for the medical services provided to Forthmuller, as well as statutory interest and an attorney’s fee. The plaintiff thereafter moved for summary judgment on its first cause of action, contending that no-fault benefits were overdue because the defendant had failed to either pay or deny its claim within 30 days as required by Insurance Law § 5106 (a) and 11 NYCRR 65-3.2. The defendant cross-moved for summary judgment dismissing the first cause of action, arguing that the 30-day period in which to pay or deny the claim was not triggered until it received the Sound Shore records it had requested as verification. The defendant also relied upon laboratory results contained in an uncertified copy of Sound Shore’s medical records as proof that Forthmuller was legally intoxicated at the time of the accident. The Supreme Court denied the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, and conditionally granted the hospital’s cross motion pending receipt of “a certified toxicology report from Sound Shore.”

“When a denial of no-fault benefits rests on the statutory exclusion of intoxication pursuant to Insurance Law § 5103 (b) (2), the regulations promulgated thereunder trigger certain timing and notification requirements that extend the 30-day statutory period within which an insurer must pay or deny a claim” (Westchester Med. Ctr. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 44 AD3d 750, 752 [2007]; see Presbyterian Hosp. in City of N.Y. v Maryland Cas. Co., 90 NY2d 274, 279 [1997]). In this regard, 11 [*3]NYCRR 65-3.8 (g) provides that “if an insurer has reason to believe that the applicant was operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated or impaired by the use of a drug, and such intoxication or impairment was a contributing cause of the automobile accident, the insurer shall be entitled to all available information relating to the applicant’s condition at the time of the accident.” This provision also states that proof of a claim shall not be complete until the information which has been requested pursuant thereto has been furnished by the insurer. Furthermore, pursuant to 11 NYCRR 65-3.5 (c), “the insurer is entitled to receive all items necessary to verify the claim directly from the parties from whom such verification was requested.”

Here, the plaintiff made a prima facie showing of its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on its first cause of action by submitting, inter alia, the requisite no-fault billing forms, a certified mail receipt referencing the patient, a signed return receipt card also referencing the patient, and the affidavit of its biller averring that the defendant failed to either pay the bill or issue a timely denial of claim form (see Westchester Med. Ctr. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 44 AD3d 750 [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]; New York & Presbyt. Hosp. v Travelers Prop. Cas. Ins. Co., 37 AD3d 683 [2007]). In opposition to the motion, however, the defendant raised a triable issue of fact as to whether it timely denied the claim by submitting evidence that a verification request seeking information regarding Forthmuller’s alleged intoxication was timely and properly sent to Sound Shore (see Westchester Med. Ctr. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 44 AD3d 750 [2007]; cf. Presbyterian Hosp. in City of N.Y. v Maryland Cas. Co., 90 NY2d 274 [1997]).

In addition, the defendant also raised a triable issue of fact as to whether Forthmuller was intoxicated at the time of the accident and whether his intoxication caused the accident by submission of the Sound Shore laboratory results and a police accident report. Although the South Shore records were not in admissible form because they were not certified (see CPLR 4518 [c]; see generally Abbas v Cole, 7 AD3d 649 [2004]; Jajoute v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 242 AD2d 674, 676 [1997]; Dudek v Sinisi, 199 AD2d 800, 801 [1993]; cf. Rodriguez v Triborough Bridge & Tunnel Auth., 276 AD2d 769, 772 [2000]; Cleary v City of New York, 234 AD2d 411 [1996]; Maxcy v County of Putnam, 178 AD2d 729, 730 [1991]; LaDuke v State Farm Ins. Co., 158 AD2d 137, 138 [1990]; Tinao v City of New York, 112 AD2d 363 [1985]), under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court properly considered this evidence in conjunction with the police accident report describing the circumstances of the accident, in opposition to the plaintiff’s motion (see Westchester Med. Ctr. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 44 AD3d 750 [2007]; see generally Phillips v Kantor & Co., 31 NY2d 307 [1972]). In addition, the police accident report describing the circumstances of the accident was properly considered to the extent that it was based upon the personal observations of the police officer present at the scene and who was under a business duty to make it (see CPLR 4518 [a]; Westchester Med. Ctr. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 44 AD3d 750 [2007]).

However, the Supreme Court should not have conditionally granted the defendant’s cross motion pending receipt of a certified toxicology report from South Shore. A blood alcohol test result, as set forth in a certified hospital record, constitutes prima facie evidence of the test result pursuant to CPLR 4518 (c) (see Rodriguez v Triborough Bridge & Tunnel Auth., 276 AD2d 769 [2000]; Martin v City of New York, 275 AD2d 351, 355 [2000]; Cleary v City of New York, 234 AD2d 411 [1996]; Maxcy v County of Putnam, 178 AD2d 729, 730 [1991]; LaDuke v State Farm Ins. Co., 158 AD2d 137, 138 [1990]; Tinao v City of New York, 112 AD2d 363 [1985]). Thus, the blood alcohol test results contained in a certified hospital record from Sound Shore would be sufficient to make a prima facie showing that Forthmuller was intoxicated at the time of the accident (see Rodriguez v Triborough Bridge & [*4]Tunnel Auth., 276 AD2d 769 [2000]). However, since the defendant also failed to make out a prima facie showing that Forthmuller’s alleged intoxication was the proximate cause of the accident (see Westchester Med. Ctr. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 44 AD3d 750, 753-754 [2007]; Lynch v Progressive Ins. Co., 12 AD3d 570, 571 [2004]; Scahall v Unigard Ins. Co., 222 AD2d 1070, 1071 [1995]; Cernik v Sentry Ins., 131 AD2d 952, 953 [1987]), its cross motion should have been denied regardless of the sufficiency of the plaintiff’s opposition papers (see generally Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853 [1985]). Prudenti, J.P., Skelos, Fisher and Dillon, JJ., concur.

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

D’Ambrosio & D’Ambrosio, P.C., Irvington, N.Y. (John P. D’Ambrosio of counsel), for respondent-appellant.

In an action to recover no-fault medical benefits under an insurance contract, the plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Mahon, J.), dated July 9, 2007, as, upon, in effect, granting renewal, adhered to its original determination in a prior order dated December 12, 2006, denying the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on the complaint, and the defendant cross-appeals from so much of the same order as, upon, in effect, granting renewal, adhered to its original determination in the prior order denying the defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed and cross-appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

On February 4, 2006 Esther Beaton was injured after the vehicle she was driving crashed into a tree. Beaton was transported from the accident scene to the plaintiff hospital for care of her injuries.

On April 14, 2006 the plaintiff, as Beaton’s assignor, sent the defendant, inter alia, a hospital facility form (NYS Form N-F5) seeking payment of its hospital bill. The defendant alleges that on April 25, 2006 it sent the plaintiff a verification request specifically seeking information pertaining to Beaton’s blood alcohol level at the time of the accident. Having received no response to the [*2]verification request, the defendant sent the plaintiff a follow-up verification request on May 26, 2006 again specifically seeking information pertaining to Beaton’s blood alcohol level at the time of the accident. Thereafter, on June 7, 2006, still having received no response to that request from the plaintiff, the defendant received from a police laboratory the results of a blood alcohol test indicating that Beaton was intoxicated at that time.

On June 14, 2006 the plaintiff commenced this action to recover no-fault benefits for the health services it provided to Beaton. The defendant sent the plaintiff a form dated June 15, 2006, by which it denied the claim on the ground that Beaton was driving while intoxicated at the time of the accident.

The plaintiff thereafter moved for summary judgment on the complaint, contending that no-fault benefits were overdue because the defendant failed to either pay or deny the subject claim within 30 days of receipt as required by, inter alia, Insurance Law § 5106 (a) and 11 NYCRR 65-3.8 (a) (1). The defendant cross-moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, arguing that the claim was timely and properly denied on the ground that Beaton was intoxicated at the time of the accident. The Supreme Court denied the motion and cross motion, and, upon, in effect, granting renewal, adhered to its original determination.

“Where a denial of no-fault benefits rests on the statutory exclusion of intoxication pursuant to Insurance Law § 5103 (b) (2), the regulations promulgated thereunder trigger certain timing and notification requirements that extend the 30-day statutory period within which an insurer must pay or deny a claim” (Westchester Med. Ctr. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 46 AD3d 675, 677 [2007], quoting Westchester Med. Ctr. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 44 AD3d 750, 753 [2007]). Specifically, 11 NYCRR 65-3.8 (g) provides that “if an insurer has reason to believe that the applicant was operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated or impaired by the use of a drug, and such intoxication or impairment was a contributing cause of the automobile accident, the insurer shall be entitled to all available information relating to the applicant’s condition at the time of the accident.” The provision further provides that “[p]roof of a claim shall not be complete until the information which has been requested, pursuant [thereto], has been furnished to the [insurer]” (11 NYCRR 65-3.8 [g]). Moreover, pursuant to 11 NYCRR 65-3.5 (c), “[t]he insurer is entitled to receive all items necessary to verify the claim directly from the parties from whom such verification was requested.”

The plaintiff’s submissions with its motion to renew did not establish, as a matter of law, that the defendant’s verification requests were untimely or improper (see Westchester Med. Ctr. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 46 AD3d 675, 678 [2007]; Westchester Med. Ctr. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 44 AD3d 750, 752-753 [2007]). Thus, upon renewal, the Supreme Court correctly adhered to its denial of the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on the complaint.

On its cross motion to renew, the defendant submitted Beaton’s certificate of disposition on her charge of driving while intoxicated pertaining to the accident. However, this failed to establish, as a matter of law, that Beaton’s intoxication was the cause of her accident and her resultant injuries (see Westchester Med. Ctr. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 46 AD3d at 679; Westchester Med. Ctr. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 44 AD3d 750, 753 [2007]; Cernik v Sentry Ins., 131 AD2d 952 [1987]). Thus, upon renewal, the Supreme Court also correctly adhered to its denial of the defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. [*3]

In light of this determination, we need not reach the plaintiff’s remaining contention. Skelos, J.P., Ritter, Florio and Dickerson, JJ., concur.

—[*1] Carman, Callahan & Ingham, LLP, Farmingdale, N.Y. (Michael F. Ingham and James Carman of counsel), for appellant.

Gallagher, Walker, Bianco & Plastaras, Mineola, N.Y. (Robert J. Walker and Dominic Bianco of counsel), for respondent.

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 to vacate an arbitration award dated January 23, 2007, the petitioner appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Lally, J.), dated June 15, 2007, which denied the petition.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

On December 10, 2004, Mira Duncalf, an insured of Progressive Northern Insurance Company (hereinafter Progressive) was involved in an automobile accident with an insured of Sentry Insurance A Mutual Company (hereinafter Sentry). On or about May 16, 2005, Progressive commenced an arbitration proceeding against Sentry with Arbitrations Forum, Inc. (hereinafter the arbitrator), seeking reimbursement, through a priority-of-payment claim (hereinafter the prior claim), of the first-party benefits paid to its insured (hereinafter the prior arbitration) (see generally Insurance Law § 5105; 11 NYCRR 65-3.12 [b]; 65-4.11). In a decision and award dated July 11, 2006, the arbitrator denied the prior claim.

On or about September 19, 2006, Progressive commenced a second arbitration proceeding with the arbitrator seeking the same reimbursement, albeit through a loss-transfer claim (hereinafter [*2]the instant claim), against Sentry (hereinafter the instant arbitration). In the instant arbitration, Sentry, inter alia, raised the affirmative defense of res judicata. In a decision and award dated January 23, 2007 (hereinafter the instant award), the arbitrator denied the instant claim on that ground. Subsequently, Progressive commenced this proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 to vacate the instant award. The Supreme Court denied the petition. We affirm.

The arbitrator did not exceed its authority by rendering an award in favor of Sentry (see CPLR 7511 [b] [1] [iii]). It was within the arbitrator’s authority to determine the preclusive effect of the prior arbitration on the instant arbitration (see Matter of City School Dist. of City of Tonawanda v Tonawanda Educ. Assn., 63 NY2d 846, 848 [1984]; Board of Educ. of Patchogue-Medford Union Free School Dist. v Patchogue-Medford Congress of Teachers, 48 NY2d 812, 813 [1979]; Matter of Globus Coffee, LLC v SJN, Inc., 47 AD3d 713, 714 [2008]; Matter of Town of Newburgh v Civil Serv. Empls. Assn., 272 AD2d 405 [2000]; see also Matter of County of Jefferson [Jefferson County Deputy Sheriff’s Assn., Local 9100], 265 AD2d 802 [1999]; Matter of Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J. v Office of Contract Arbitrator, 254 AD2d 194, 195 [1998]; Rabinovich v Shchegol, 251 AD2d 25 [1998]; Matter of Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J. v Port Auth. Police Sergeants Benevolent Assn., 225 AD2d 503 [1996]; Matter of Birchwood Mgt. Corp. v Local 670, Stationary Engrs., RWDSU, AFL-CIO, 154 AD2d 531 [1989]; Vilceus v North Riv. Ins. Co., 150 AD2d 769, 770 [1989]; Matter of Resnick v Serlin, 119 AD2d 825 [1986]; Matter of Board of Educ., Florida Union Free School Dist. [Florida Teachers Assn.], 104 AD2d 411, 411-412 [1984], affd 64 NY2d 822 [1985]).

Moreover, it is clear that the instant claim made by Progressive arose out of the same transaction as the prior claim that was denied in the prior arbitration (see Matter of Hunter, 4 NY3d 260, 269 [2005]; Matter of Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. v Bonilla, 219 AD2d 708, 708-709 [1995]; Matter of Ulster Elec. Supply Co. v Local 1430, Intl. Bhd. of Elec. Workers, 253 AD2d 765 [1998]). While Progressive now alleges different facts regarding how the accident occurred, and a different theory upon which reimbursement is sought, the instant arbitration and the instant claim involve the same accident and the same parties, while Progressive seeks reimbursement of the same payments, albeit on a different legal theory (see Matter of Hunter, 4 NY3d 260, 269 [2005]; Boronow v Boronow, 71 NY2d 284, 290 [1988]; Smith v Russell Sage Coll., 54 NY2d 185, 192-193 [1981]; Matter of Reilly v Reid, 45 NY2d 24, 29 [1978]; Marinelli Assoc. v Helmsley-Noyes Co., 265 AD2d 1, 5 [2000]).

Where, as here, the facts upon which the prior claim and the instant claim are based were related in time, space, and origin, and form a convenient trial unit, and their treatment as a unit conforms to the parties’ expectations (see Boronow v Boronow, 71 NY2d 284, 289 [1988]; Smith v Russell Sage Coll., 54 NY2d 185, 192-193 [1981]; Matter of Reilly v Reid, 45 NY2d 24 [1978]; Flushing Plumbing Supply Co., Inc. v F&T Mgt. & Parking Corp., 29 AD3d 855, 856 [2006]; Couri v Westchester Country Club, 186 AD2d 715, 716 [1992]; Matter of Bauer v Planning Bd. of Vil. of Scarsdale, 186 AD2d 129, 130 [1992]), the arbitrator’s decision to bar the instant compulsory arbitration (see Insurance Law § 5105) was neither arbitrary nor capricious and was supported by a “reasonable hypothesis” (Matter of Motor Veh. Acc. Indem. Corp. v Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 89 NY2d 214, 224 [1996]; see Matter of State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co., 18 AD3d 762, 763 [2005]). Thus, the instant award was not subject to vacatur under CPLR 7511 (b) (1).

Progressive’s remaining contentions are without merit or need not be reached in light of our determination. Mastro, J.P., Skelos, Lifson and Leventhal, JJ., concur.

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

Teresa M. Spina, Woodbury, N.Y. (Jeanne M. Ortega of counsel), for respondent.

In an action to recover no-fault medical payments, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Feinman, J.), dated July 25, 2007, as denied its motion for summary judgment on the complaint.

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

The plaintiff established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. It submitted evidentiary proof that the prescribed statutory billing forms were mailed and received, that payment of no-fault benefits was overdue (see Nyack Hosp. v Metropolitan Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 16 AD3d 564 [2005]), and that the denial of claim form it received from the defendant, dated June 25, 2006, was fatally insufficient in that it failed to include the information called for in the prescribed denial of claim form (see Nyack Hosp. v Metropolitan Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 16 AD3d 564 [2005]; Presbyterian Hosp. in City of N.Y. v Maryland Cas. Co., 226 AD2d 613 [1996]; cf. Westchester Med. Ctr. v Allstate Ins. Co., 45 AD3d 579 [2007]). However, in opposition, the defendant submitted admissible evidence in the form of an affidavit of an employee with knowledge of the defendant’s standard office practices or procedures designed to ensure that items were properly addressed and mailed (see New York & Presbyt. Hosp. v Allstate Ins. Co., 29 AD3d 547 [2006]; Hospital for Joint Diseases v Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 284 AD2d 374 [2001]; Residential Holding Corp. v Scottsdale Ins. Co., 286 AD2d 679 [2001]; Delta Diagnostic Radiology, P.C. v Chubb Group of Ins., 17 Misc 3d 16 [2007]; cf. Westchester Med. Ctr. v Countrywide Ins. Co., 45 AD3d 676 [2007]). The employee attested that a denial [*2]of claim form dated June 22, 2006, containing all the information called for in the prescribed form was timely issued to the plaintiff on that date. Thus, the defendant raised a triable issue of fact as to whether it issued a proper denial of claim form.

Contrary to the plaintiff’s further contention, the excerpts of the insured’s medical records submitted by the defendant in opposition to its motion constituted admissible evidence sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the defendant was entitled to deny the claim (see CPLR 4518 [c]; Maxcy v County of Putnam, 178 AD2d 729 [1991]). Prudenti, P.J., Fisher, Miller and Balkin, JJ., concur.

—[*1] Lipsitz Green Scime Cambria LLP, Buffalo (John A. Collins of counsel), for defendant-appellant.

Barth Sullivan Behr, Buffalo (Pierre A. Vincent of counsel), for plaintiff-respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Joseph R. Glownia, J.), entered March 6, 2007. The order, insofar as appealed from, denied the cross motion of defendant James W. Celotto to dismiss the complaint against him.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Plaintiff commenced this action in Buffalo City Court seeking to recover the amount that it paid to its insured for property damage sustained in a collision between the insured’s vehicle and a vehicle operated by James W. Celotto (defendant). Plaintiff did not move pursuant to CPLR 3025 (b) to amend the complaint to add a cause of action to recover no-fault personal injury protection (PIP) and additional personal injury protection (APIP) benefits paid to its insured and to increase the ad damnum clause but, rather, it merely informed a court attorney at Buffalo City Court by letter of those proposed amendments. The court attorney advised plaintiff that, because the proposed amendment to the ad damnum clause would remove the action from the jurisdictional limits of Buffalo City Court, the Judge assigned to the action was directing plaintiff to seek removal of the action pursuant to CPLR 325 (b).

Supreme Court granted plaintiff’s motion to remove the action to that court, denied the cross motion of defendant to dismiss the complaint against him, and sua sponte removed the action back to Buffalo City Court pursuant to CPLR 325 (d) and 22 NYCRR 202.13 (e). Defendant contends on appeal that Supreme Court erred in denying that part of his cross motion seeking dismissal of the claims to recover PIP and APIP benefits paid to plaintiff’s insured. The complaint, however, was never amended and it does not contain any such claims (see Everett v Loretto Adult Community, Inc., 32 AD3d 1273, 1274-1275 [2006]). We thus conclude that the court properly denied the cross motion (see generally Moscato v City of New York [Parks Dept.], 183 AD2d 599, 601 [1992]). Present—Martoche, J.P., Centra, Lunn, Peradotto and Green, JJ.

—[*1] Karen C. Dodson (Carol R. Finocchio, New York, N.Y. [Lisa M. Comeau] of counsel), for appellant.

Alden Banniettis, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Jeff Henle of counsel), for respondent.

In an action to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits under an insurance contract, the defendant appeals, by permission, from an order of the Appellate Term of the Supreme Court for the Second and Eleventh Judicial Districts, dated December 15, 2006 [14 Misc 2d 128(A), 2006 NY Slip Op 52502(U)], which reversed so much of an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Sweeney, J.), dated September 14, 2005, as denied the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on the complaint, and thereupon granted the plaintiff’s motion.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff established, prima facie, its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]). Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the Appellate Term properly determined that the peer review reports submitted in opposition to the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on the complaint were inadmissible since they contained computerized, affixed, or stamped facsimiles of the physician’s signature. These reports failed to comply with CPLR 2106, since they were not subscribed and affirmed, but merely contained facsimiles of the physician’s signature without any indication as to who placed them on the reports, nor are there any indicia that the facsimiles were properly authorized (see Dowling v Mosey, 32 AD3d 1190, 1191 [2006]; Security Pac. Natl. Trust Co. v Cuevas, 176 Misc 2d 846 [1998]; Sandymark Realty Corp. v Creswell, 67 Misc 2d 630 [1971]; Macri v St. Agnes Cemetery, 44 Misc 2d 702 [1965]). Thus, the [*2]reports did not constitute competent evidence sufficient to defeat the plaintiff’s motion (see generally Burgos v Vargas, 33 AD3d 579 [2006]; Bourgeois v North Shore Univ. Hosp. at Forest Hills, 290 AD2d 525 [2002]; Doumanis v Conzo, 265 AD2d 296 [1999]; MZ Dental, P.C. v Progressive Northeastern Ins. Co., 6 Misc 3d 649 [2004]). Accordingly, the Appellate Term properly granted the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on the complaint based on the defendant’s failure to raise a triable issue of fact in opposition to the plaintiff’s prima facie showing on the motion. Lifson, J.P., Florio, Eng and Chambers, JJ., concur.

—[*1] Thomas Torto, New York (Jason Levine of counsel), for appellant.

Gary Tsirelman, Brooklyn, for respondent.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Helen E. Freedman, J.), entered January 30, 2007, awarding defendant the principal sum of $12,638.96, and bringing up for review an order, same court and Justice, entered May 25, 2006, which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment on its claim for first-party no-fault insurance benefits, and an order, same court and Justice, entered May 30, 2006, which in effect granted plaintiff’s motion for reargument and, upon reargument, adhered to its prior determination, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the judgment vacated, and defendant’s motion for summary judgment denied. Appeal from the order entered May 30, 2006 unanimously dismissed, without costs, as subsumed in the appeal from the judgment.

Defendant medical provider established prima facie its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that the necessary billing documents were mailed to and received by plaintiff insurer and that payment of the 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]). However, in opposition to the motion, plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact whether the claimed benefits were properly denied for lack of medical justification. Plaintiff was not required to set forth the medical rationale in the prescribed denial of claim form (see A.B. Med. Servs., PLLC v Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 39 AD3d 779 [2007]). Nor is a nurse’s review denying no-fault claims for lack of medical necessity per se invalid (see Channel Chiropractic, P.C. v Country-Wide Ins. Co., 38 AD3d 294, 295 [2007]). [*2]

Plaintiff waived its objection to defendant’s standing (see Hospital for Joint Diseases v Travelers Prop. Cas. Ins. Co., 9 NY3d 312, 320 [2007]). Concur—Saxe, J.P., Sweeny, McGuire and Acosta, JJ.

—[*1] Goldberg Segalla, L.L.P., Albany (Stuart Bodoff of Rivkin Radler, L.L.P., Uniondale, of counsel), for appellant.

Law Office of Craig Meyerson, Latham (Craig Meyerson of counsel), for respondents.

Mugglin, J. Appeals (1) from three orders of the Supreme Court (Pulver, Jr., J.), entered January 12, 2007, January 26, 2007 and April 16, 2007 in Greene County, which, among other things, granted plaintiffs’ cross motion for summary judgment on certain causes of action, and (2) from the judgment entered thereon.

Plaintiffs, two psychological services providers, sued defendant to recover on no-fault claims assigned to them by individuals insured by defendant who had been injured in automobile accidents. At issue on this appeal is the grant of summary judgment to plaintiffs on certain causes of action, the computation of interest thereon and the award of counsel fees. With respect to the first issue, defendant argued that plaintiffs failed to establish standing to commence the action by reason of their failure to submit documentation establishing the assignment of the claims to them. Defendant’s counsel has advised that, in light of the Court of Appeals decision in Hospital for Joint Diseases v Travelers Prop. Cas. Ins. Co. (9 NY3d 312 [2007]), this issue has been withdrawn.

Turning to the remaining arguments, we first reject defendant’s contention that Supreme Court improperly awarded interest to plaintiffs by not tolling the interest for the period between 30 days after plaintiffs received the claim denial until plaintiffs commenced this action. Since [*2]defendant failed to raise this challenge to the proposed judgment before Supreme Court, the issue is unpreserved for our review (see Ferran v Dwyer, 252 AD2d 758, 759 [1998]; Hopper v Lockey, 241 AD2d 892, 893-894 [1997]). In any event, the argument is meritless. Interest on untimely paid no-fault claims is calculated at the rate of 2% per month, compounded, commencing 30 days after proper presentment of the claim (see 11 NYCRR former 65.15 [h] [1]; Hempstead Gen. Hosp. v Insurance Co. of N. Am., 208 AD2d 501, 501 [1994]; Smithtown Gen. Hosp. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 207 AD2d 338, 339 [1994]). Interest will be stayed only in those circumstances where a claimant has failed to submit the claim to arbitration or to commence an action within 30 days after receipt of the timely denial of the claim and does not, thereafter, begin to accrue until action is taken (see East Acupuncture, P.C. v Allstate Ins. Co., 15 Misc 3d 104, 106 [2007]). Here, defendant did not issue a proper and timely denial to plaintiffs’ no-fault claims and, thus, defendant is not entitled to the benefit of the tolling provision. This interpretation of the regulatory scheme promotes the prompt resolution and compensation of claims and prohibits any reward to a “dilatory insurance company” (Elmont Open MRI & Diagnostic Radiology, P.C. v Country-Wide Ins. Co., 15 Misc 3d 552, 558 [2007]). Thus, to avoid penalizing injured parties and to encourage the prompt resolution of claims, insurance companies are not entitled to a tolling of the accumulation of interest where they have failed to pay or properly deny a claim within the required time limits (see Cardinell v Allstate Ins. Co., 302 AD2d 772, 774 [2003]).

Finally, Supreme Court did not err in awarding counsel fees on a per claim basis rather than a per assignor basis. When forced to commence an action to compel the payment of a proper no-fault claim, a claimant is entitled to recover counsel fees in the sum of 20% of the amount of first-party benefits, plus interest, subject to a maximum fee of $850 (see Insurance Law § 5106 [a]; 11 NYCRR former 65.17 [b] [6] [v]; 65.18 [f] [5]). Notably, the Superintendent of Insurance issued an opinion letter on October 8, 2003 that counsel fees are calculated on a per assignor basis (see Ops Gen Counsel NY Ins Dept No. 03-10-04 [Oct. 2003]; Marigliano v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 13 Misc 3d 1079 [2006]). We conclude that such opinion letter is not an appropriate interpretation of the statute. Although we ordinarily give deference to the agency’s interpretation of its own regulations, such deference need not be accorded where, as here, the interpretation conflicts with the explicit language of the controlling statute (see Marigliano v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 15 Misc 3d 766, 774 [2007]; Alpha Chiropractic P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 14 Misc 3d 673, 678 [2006]).

The Superintendent’s interpretation undermines the goal of the no-fault law to fully compensate a claimant for economic loss resulting from the wrongful denial of a claim and wastes judicial assets by encouraging the commencement of multiple actions in order to recover the maximum available counsel fees (see Midwood Total Rehab. Med., P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 16 Misc 3d 480, 482 [2007]). Moreover, in spite of the Superintendent’s opinion letter, the well-settled case law is that the statute requires payment of counsel fees on a per claim basis (see Marigliano v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 15 Misc 3d at 772; Valley Stream Med. & Rehab, P.C. v Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 15 Misc 3d 576 [2007]; Alpha Chiropractic P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 14 Misc 3d at 673; Willis Acupuncture, P.C. v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 6 Misc 3d 1002[A], 2004 NY Slip Op 51702[U] [2004]).

Mercure, J.P., Rose, Lahtinen and Kane, JJ., concur. Ordered that the orders and judgment are affirmed, with costs.