Decided on March 24, 2017

Decided on March 20, 2017

Decided on March 20, 2017

Decided on February 27, 2017

SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS

Decided on February 15, 2017

SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS

[*1]

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Department, 9th and 10th Judicial Districts, February 15, 2017

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

Gabriel & Shapiro LLC, Wantagh (Jason Moroff and Steven F. Palumbo of counsel), for appellant.

Gialleonardo, McDonald & Turchetti, New York City (Kevon Lewis of counsel), for respondent.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs.

In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, plaintiff appeals from an order of the District Court which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that plaintiff had failed to provide requested verification.

It is undisputed that, during claims processing, plaintiff’s attorney sent defendant a letter requesting that “all other communications relating to this claim” be sent to plaintiff’s attorney. Defendant timely mailed verification and follow-up verification requests to plaintiff but did not send these requests to plaintiff’s attorney. On appeal, plaintiff argues that, pursuant to 11 NYCRR 65-3.6 (b), upon sending the follow-up verification request to plaintiff, defendant was required to send plaintiff’s attorney a delay letter. In the alternative, plaintiff contends that, in accordance with the letter received from plaintiff’s counsel, defendant was obligated to send the initial and follow-up verification requests to plaintiff’s counsel. Plaintiff maintains that since defendant failed to do so, defendant is not entitled to summary judgment.

Plaintiff’s contention that, pursuant to 11 NYCRR 65-3.6 (b), upon sending the follow-up verification request to plaintiff, defendant was required to send plaintiff’s attorney a delay letter lacks merit, as there is no such requirement, where, as here, the party from whom the verification is sought is the plaintiff,{**55 Misc 3d at 93} rather than another person or entity (see GNK Med. Supply, Inc. v Tri-State Consumer Ins. Co., 37 Misc 3d 138[A], 2012 NY Slip Op 52195[U] [App Term, 1st Dept 2012]; Doshi Diagnostic Imaging Servs. v State Farm Ins. Co., 16 Misc 3d 42, 44 [App Term, 2d Dept, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2007]).

To the extent plaintiff contends that, in accordance with the letter received from plaintiff’s counsel, defendant was obligated to send the initial and follow-up verification requests to plaintiff’s counsel, we disagree. Insurers are obligated to comply with the no-fault regulations, which require that both the initial and follow-up verification requests be sent to the party from whom the verification is sought (see 11 NYCRR 65-3.5 [b]; 65-3.6 [b]) and, thus, defendant cannot be penalized for sending the verification requests to plaintiff notwithstanding the request from plaintiff’s counsel (cf. St. Vincent’s Hosp. of Richmond v American Tr. Ins. Co., 299 AD2d 338 [2002]; New York Hosp. Med. Ctr. of Queens v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 293 AD2d 588 [2002]). In addition, we note that if plaintiff was confused as to why the requests were sent to it or whether it needed to respond to the requests, “[a]ny confusion on the part of the plaintiff . . . should have been addressed by further communication, not inaction” (Westchester County Med. Ctr. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 262 AD2d 553, 555 [1999]).

In light of the foregoing, we find no basis to disturb the order of the District Court.

Accordingly, the order is affirmed.

Marano, P.J., Garguilo and Brands, JJ., concur.

Decided on February 8, 2017

SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 2d, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Reginald A. Boddie, J.), entered January 22, 2015. The order granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with $25 costs.

In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, arguing that, after applying the deductible set forth in the insurance policy in question, it had paid plaintiff for the services at issue in accordance with the workers’ compensation fee schedule. Plaintiff opposed the motion, arguing that defendant’s motion was untimely pursuant to CPLR 3212 (a), that defendant had not properly applied the fee schedule, and that defendant had failed to show that a deductible was applicable since the copy of the automobile insurance policy included in the moving papers contains an out-of-state certification. By order entered January 22, 2015, the Civil Court granted defendant’s motion.

It is uncontroverted that defendant served plaintiff with its original motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on April 14, 2014, which was within 120 days of the filing of the notice of trial on December 13, 2013. However, the Clerk of the Kings County Civil Court did not accept the filing of the motion because the notice of motion contained an incorrect address for the court. Thereafter, in May 2014, defendant filed a second, otherwise identical, motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, which set forth the correct address for the Civil Court. “It does not follow from the fact that this single motion had been served . . . on two separate occasions that its timeliness must be judged by the later . . . rather than the earlier . . . date of service. The mere fact that the defendant, after having served its original notice of motion on the plaintiff’s attorney in a timely fashion, filed new motion papers seeking the same relief, [was] not fatal to [such motion]” (Rivera v Glen Oaks Vil. Owners, Inc., 29 AD3d 560, 562 [2006] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]). Consequently, we find that the Civil Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in determining that defendant’s second motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint was not untimely.

With respect to the merits of defendant’s motion, we note that, on appeal, plaintiff does not renew its claim that defendant did not properly apply the fee schedule. Plaintiff claims that the copy of the automobile insurance policy annexed to defendant’s moving papers was [*2]inadmissible because it lacked a proper certificate of conformity. However, the absence of a certificate of conformity is not a fatal defect (see Bank of NY Mellon v Vytalingam, 144 AD3d 1070 [2016]; Fuller v Nesbitt, 116 AD3d 999 [2014]; Fredette v Town of Southampton, 95 AD3d 940 [2012]; see also Gonzalez v Perkan Concrete Corp., 110 AD3d 955 [2013]; Smith v Allstate Ins. Co., 38 AD3d 522 [2007]; Healing Art Acupuncture, P.C. v Amica Mut. Ins. Co., 46 Misc 3d 138[A], 2015 NY Slip Op 50078[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2015]), as the defect may be disregarded pursuant to CPLR 2001 where a substantial right of a party is not prejudiced (see Midfirst Bank v Agho, 121 AD3d 343 [2014]; Rivers v Birnbaum, 102 AD3d 26 [2012]). In the case at bar, plaintiff failed to make any showing of prejudice. Inasmuch as the affidavits and documents defendant submitted sufficiently established that the automobile insurance policy in question had a $200 personal injury protection deductible, we find no basis to disturb the Civil Court’s implicit finding that defendant, pursuant to the terms of the policy, was entitled to deduct $200 from the sum it was required to pay plaintiff for the services plaintiff had rendered to its assignor in July 2007.

Accordingly, the order is affirmed.

Elliot, J.P., Pesce and Solomon, JJ., concur.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Jodi Orlow, J.), entered February 3, 2015. The order, insofar as appealed from, granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint for plaintiff’s failure to provide discovery, pursuant to an order of the same court (Richard G. Latin, J.) entered July 28, 2014, to the extent of directing plaintiff to serve responses to certain enumerated demands within 60 days.

ORDERED that the order entered February 3, 2015, insofar as appealed from, is affirmed, with $25 costs.

In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, defendant, on December 5, 2013, served an answer and demands for discovery including “supplemental combined demands.” Plaintiff did not provide the requested discovery but, instead, moved for summary judgment. Thereafter, defendant cross-moved, among other things, to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3126, or, in the alternative, to compel plaintiff to respond to the discovery demands. Plaintiff served papers in opposition to defendant’s cross motion, which included incomplete responses to the discovery demands. By order entered July 28, 2014, the Civil Court (Richard G. Latin, J.) granted defendant’s cross motion to the extent of directing plaintiff to provide responses to the “supplemental combined demands” within 60 days. The order and notice of its entry were served on plaintiff’s counsel on August 5, 2014. Plaintiff did not serve the ordered discovery responses but, instead, served a notice of trial and certificate of readiness, which defendant’s attorneys received approximately one week later, on August 13, 2014.

Defendant then moved, pursuant to CPLR 3126, to dismiss the complaint, or, in the alternative, to vacate the notice of trial and certificate of readiness, or, in the alternative, to direct plaintiff to provide discovery responses, in accordance with the Civil Court’s July 28, 2014 order. Plaintiff opposed the motion and annexed responses which consisted primarily of objections to the “supplemental combined demands.” Plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Civil Court (Jodi Orlow, J.) entered February 3, 2015 as granted defendant’s motion to the extent of directing plaintiff to provide, within 60 days, responses to certain enumerated discovery demands and stated that the action would be dismissed based upon an affirmation of noncompliance by defense counsel.

Since the demands for discovery were served on plaintiff’s counsel on December 5, 2013 [*2]and plaintiff did not challenge the propriety of the demands within the time prescribed by CPLR 3122 (a), plaintiff is obligated to produce the information sought by defendant except as to matters which are palpably improper or privileged (see Fausto v City of New York, 17 AD3d 520 [2005]; Marino v County of Nassau, 16 AD3d 628 [2005]; AVA Acupuncture, P.C. v AutoOne Ins. Co., 28 Misc 3d 134[A], 2010 NY Slip Op 51350[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2010]). Plaintiff has failed to establish that the discovery demands at issue seek information which is palpably improper or privileged. In light of the foregoing and the Civil Court order entered July 28, 2014, and as plaintiff’s remaining contentions lack merit, we find no basis to disturb the February 3, 2015 order, insofar as appealed from.

Accordingly, the order, insofar as appealed from, is affirmed.

Weston, J.P., Aliotta and Elliot, JJ., concur.

Decided on February 8, 2017

SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 2d, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS