Plaintiff appeals from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County (Tanya R. Kennedy, J.), entered November 12, 2014, which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and denied plaintiff’s cross motion for summary judgment.

Per Curiam.

Order (Tanya R. Kennedy, J.), entered November 12, 2014, modified to deny defendant’s motion for summary judgment and to reinstate the complaint; as modified, order affirmed, without costs.

Defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing this first-party no-fault action on the ground of lack of medical necessity should have been denied. The independent medical examination (IME) report of defendant’s chiropractor/acupuncturist, one Antoinette Perrie, was not in admissible form and should not have been considered. The report erroneously identified Dr. Perrie as a licensed “physician” (see Paul-Austin v McPherson, 111 AD3d 610 [2013]), and was denominated as an affirmation purportedly made under the authority of CPLR 2106. However, neither a chiropractor nor an acupuncturist may affirm the contents of a medical report pursuant to CPLR 2106 (see Walker v Village of Ossining, 18 AD3d 867, 868 [2005]; Shinn v Catanzaro, 1 AD3d 195, 197 [2003]). Nor was the report shown to have been properly “sworn to” before a notary or other authorized official (see Hartley v White, 63 AD3d 1689, 1690 [2009]; Feggins v Fagard, 52 AD3d 1221, 1223 [2008]; see also Gleason, Practice Commentaries, McKinney’s Cons. Laws of NY, Book 7B, C2106:4. P 609-610).

Plaintiff’s cross motion for summary judgment was properly denied, since it failed to establish, prima facie, that its claims were overdue, i.e., that its claims were not “denied or paid” within the prescribed 30-day period (see Viviane Etienne Med. Care, P.C. v Country-Wide Ins. Co., 25 NY3d 498, 507 [2015]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

I concur I concur I concur

Decided on February 5, 2016

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

Decided on February 5, 2016

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

Decided on February 5, 2016

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

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Maureen A. Healy, J.), entered September 3, 2013. The order granted defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

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

In April 2012, plaintiff commenced this action to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits for services rendered to its assignor, Balgobin Manoo, who had allegedly sustained injuries in a motor vehicle accident which had occurred on November 14, 2011. After this action was commenced, defendant commenced a declaratory judgment action in the Supreme Court, New York County, against Manoo, plaintiff and other providers, seeking a declaration that the defendants therein were not entitled to no-fault benefits as a result of the November 14, 2011 accident involving Manoo, on the ground that Manoo had failed to comply with the terms of the applicable insurance policy by failing to appear for scheduled examinations under oath (EUOs). Neither plaintiff nor Manoo appeared or served an answer in the Supreme Court declaratory judgment action.

In November 2012, plaintiff moved in this action for summary judgment. In June 2013, defendant cross-moved in this action for summary judgment dismissing the complaint based upon Manoo’s failure to appear at scheduled EUOs. In addition to submitting various affidavits and documents in support of the cross motion, defendant submitted an affirmation of defense counsel which stated that defendant had made a motion for the entry of a default judgment against plaintiff and Manoo in the Supreme Court declaratory judgment action, which motion was unopposed, and that defendant was expecting a decision in its favor. Upon receipt of a decision in that action, defendant reserved its right to supplement its cross motion with that decision or to include the decision with its reply affirmation. Approximately one week later, plaintiff submitted an affirmation in opposition to defendant’s cross motion, without mentioning the declaratory judgment action. In August 2013, defense counsel submitted a reply affirmation, noting that, on July 8, 2013, an order had been entered on default in the Supreme Court declaratory judgment action declaring that plaintiff herein and its assignor had no right to be reimbursed for services rendered to the assignor and that defendant herein had no obligation to provide coverage for no-fault claims with respect to the accident in question. Plaintiff appeals from an order of the Civil Court which granted defendant’s cross motion, based on the Supreme Court order, and dismissed the complaint.

Plaintiff argues that by failing to plead collateral estoppel or res judicata as affirmative defenses in its answer, defendant waived those defenses (see CPLR 3018 [b]). Initially, we note [*2]that defendant’s failure to raise the affirmative defenses of collateral estoppel or res judicata in its answer was understandable and excusable since defendant had no reason to assert these defenses before July 2013, when the Supreme Court entered the order in the declaratory judgment action. In any event, a waiver will not result if a defendant’s failure to plead a matter affirmatively does not take the adverse party by surprise (see e.g. Olean Urban Renewal Agency v Herman, 101 AD2d 712, 713 [1984]; see also Rogoff v San Juan Racing Assn., 77 AD2d 831 [1980], affd 54 NY2d 883 [1981]). Indeed, “an unpleaded defense may serve as the basis for granting summary judgment in the absence of surprise or prejudice to the opposing party” (Sullivan v American Airlines, Inc., 80 AD3d 600, 602 [2011]; see also Lerwick v Kelsey, 24 AD3d 918, 919 [2005]; Allen v Matthews, 266 AD2d 782 [1999]).

Defense counsel’s affirmation in support of defendant’s cross motion (which alerted plaintiff that an order in the declaratory judgment action was imminent) as well as the reply papers (which included a complete set of pleadings, motion papers and the order in the declaratory judgment action) apprised plaintiff that defendant was asserting the affirmative defenses of collateral estoppel and res judicata based on the declaratory judgment action, and plaintiff chose not to address this issue, either in opposition to defendant’s cross motion or by way of surreply. Nor does the record indicate that there was any prejudice to plaintiff.

In any event, this court may take judicial notice of undisputed court records and files, including the order in the Supreme Court declaratory judgment action (see Kingsbrook Jewish Med. Ctr. v Allstate Ins. Co., 61 AD3d 13 [2009]; Matter of Khatibi v Weill, 8 AD3d 485 [2004]; Matter of Allen v Strough, 301 AD2d 11 [2002]). Having done so, we find that the present action is barred under the doctrine of res judicata, for the reasons stated in Renelique as Assignee of Balgobin Manoo v State-Wide Ins. Co. (__ Misc 3d ___, 2016 NY Slip Op _____ [appeal No. 2013-2314 Q C], decided herewith).

Plaintiff’s remaining contentions on appeal are without merit.

Accordingly, the order is affirmed.

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

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Maureen A. Healy, J.), entered September 3, 2013. The order, upon, in effect, treating defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint as one for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, granted the motion.

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

In May 2012, plaintiff commenced this action to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits for services rendered to its assignor, who had allegedly sustained injuries in a motor vehicle accident which had occurred on November 14, 2011. Issue was joined in July 2012. Subsequently, defendant moved to dismiss the complaint, pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (5), contending that plaintiff’s cause of action was barred by virtue of an order entered on July 8, 2013 in a Supreme Court declaratory judgment action. The Supreme Court order, entered on default, declared that plaintiff herein and its assignor had no right to be reimbursed for services rendered to the assignor and that defendant herein had no obligation to provide coverage for no-fault claims with respect to the accident in question. Plaintiff appeals from an order of the Civil Court which granted defendant’s motion.

At the outset, we note that although defendant’s motion was denominated as one to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (5), it was made after issue was joined (see generally CPLR 3211 [e]). In these circumstances, the CPLR requires the court to give “adequate notice to the parties” that it will treat defendant’s motion to dismiss as one for summary judgment (CPLR 3211 [c]). Here, however, an exception to the notice requirement was applicable, since defendant’s motion exclusively involved “a purely legal question rather than any issues of fact” (Mihlovan v Grozavu, 72 NY2d 506, 508 [1988]; Four Seasons Hotels v Vinnik, 127 AD2d 310, 320 [1987]). Consequently, it was proper for the Civil Court to, in effect, treat defendant’s motion to dismiss as one for summary judgment “without first giving notice of its intention to do so” (Four Seasons Hotels, 127 AD2d at 320.)

In light of the July 8, 2013 Supreme Court order, the present action is barred under the doctrine of res judicata (see Flushing Traditional Acupuncture P.C. v Kemper Ins. Co., 42 Misc 3d 133[A], 2014 NY Slip Op 50052[U] [App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2014]; EBM Med. Health Care, P.C. v Republic W. Ins., 38 Misc 3d 1 [App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2012]; Ava Acupuncture, P.C. v NY Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 34 Misc 3d 149[A], 2012 NY Slip Op 50233[U] [App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2012]), as any judgment in favor of plaintiff in this action would destroy or impair rights or interests established by the Supreme Court order (see Schuylkill Fuel Corp. v Nieberg Realty Corp., 250 NY 304, 306-307 [1929]; SZ Med., P.C. v Erie Ins. Co., 24 Misc 3d 126[A], 2009 NY Slip Op 51221[U] [App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2009]). Moreover, the Supreme Court’s order is a conclusive final [*2]determination, notwithstanding that it was entered on default (see Lazides v P & G Enters., 58 AD3d 607 [2009]; Matter of Allstate Ins. Co. v Williams, 29 AD3d 658, 690 [2006]; Matter of Eagle Ins. Co. v Facey, 272 AD2d 399 [2000]; Vital Meridian Acupuncture, P.C. v Republic W. Ins. Co., 46 Misc 3d 147[A], 2015 NY Slip Op 50222[U] [App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2015]; EBM Med. Health Care, P.C. v Republic W. Ins., 38 Misc 3d 1; Ava Acupuncture, P.C. v N Y Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 34 Misc 3d 149[A], 2012 NY Slip Op 50233[U]).

Plaintiff’s remaining contentions are not properly before this court, as they were raised for the first time on appeal.

Accordingly, the order is affirmed.

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

Decided on January 13, 2016

Defendant appeals from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Bronx County (Elizabeth A. Taylor, J.), entered July 8, 2014, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Per Curiam.

Order (Elizabeth A. Taylor, J.), entered July 8, 2014, reversed, with $10 costs, and defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.

The defendant-insurer made a prima facie showing of entitlement to summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff-provider’s claim for first-party no-fault benefits by establishing that it timely and properly mailed the notices for independent medical examinations (IMEs) to plaintiff’s assignor, and that the assignor failed to appear (see American Tr. Ins. Co. v Lucas, 111 AD3d 423 [2013]; American Tr. Ins. Co. v Solorzano, 108 AD3d 449 [2013]). Contrary to plaintiff’s specific contention, defendant was entitled to request the IMEs prior to its receipt of plaintiff’s claim forms on January 10, 2011 (see 11 NYCRR 65-1.1; Steven Fogel Psychological, P.C. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 35 AD3d 720, 721 [2006]; Easy Care Acupuncture P.C. v Praetorian Ins. Co., 49 Misc 3d 137[A], 2015 NY Slip Op 51524[U][App Term, 1st Dept 2015]), and such request complied with the applicable procedures and time-frames set forth in the no-fault regulations (see Unitrin Advantage Ins. Co. v Bayshore Physical Therapy, PLLC, 82 AD3d 559, 560 [2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 705 [2011]; Inwood Hill Med., P.C. v General Assur. Co., 10 Misc 3d 18, 19-20 [2005]; cf. American Tr. Ins. Co. v Longevity Med. Supply, Inc., 131 AD3d 841 [2015]). Moreover, defendant submitted competent evidence of the assignor’s nonappearance in the form of the sworn affidavits of the scheduled examining chiropractor/acupuncturist and an employee of defendant’s third-party IME scheduler, setting forth sufficient facts to demonstrate the affiants’ personal knowledge of the assignor’s repeated failures to appear for the IMEs and the office practices and policies when an assignor fails to appear (see American Tr. Ins. Co. v Lucas, 111 AD3d at 424).

In opposition, plaintiff did not specifically deny the assignor’s nonappearance or [*2]otherwise raise a triable issue with respect thereto, or as to the mailing or reasonableness of the underlying notices (see Unitrin, 82 AD3d at 560). Accordingly, when the assignor failed to appear for the requested acupuncture IMEs, defendant had the right to deny all claims retroactively to the date of loss, regardless of whether the denials were timely issued (see American Tr. Ins. Co. v Lucas, 111 AD3d at 424), and even though defendant initially denied certain of the claims on different grounds (see Unitrin, 82 AD3d at 560).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Richard G. Latin, J.), entered April 4, 2013. The order, insofar as appealed from, denied the branches of plaintiff’s motion seeking summary judgment upon the first and third through seventh causes of action and granted the branches of defendant’s cross motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the first and third through sixth causes of action.

ORDERED that the order, insofar as appealed from, is modified by providing that the branches of defendant’s cross motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the first and third through sixth causes of action are denied; as so modified, the order, insofar as appealed from, is affirmed, without costs.

In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, plaintiff moved for summary judgment and defendant cross-moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Insofar as is relevant to this appeal, by order entered April 4, 2013, the Civil Court denied the branches of plaintiff’s motion seeking summary judgment upon the first and third through seventh causes of action and granted the branches of defendant’s cross motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the first and third through sixth causes of action.

Plaintiff’s moving papers failed to establish either that defendant had failed to pay or deny the claims within the requisite 30-day period (see Viviane Etienne Med. Care, P.C. v Country-Wide Ins. Co., 25 NY3d 498 [2015]), or that defendant had issued timely denials of claim that were conclusory, vague or without merit as a matter of law (see Westchester Med. Ctr. v Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 78 AD3d 1168 [2010]; Ave T MPC Corp. v Auto One Ins. Co., 32 Misc 3d 128[A], 2011 NY Slip Op 51292[U] [App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2011]). Consequently, contrary to plaintiff’s contention, plaintiff is not entitled to summary judgment upon the first and third through seventh causes of action. We note that even if plaintiff had made a prima facie showing of its entitlement to summary judgment upon the seventh cause of action, it would not be entitled to summary judgment thereon, as the conflicting medical expert opinions proffered by the parties demonstrated the existence of a triable issue of fact as to whether there was a lack of medical necessity for the services at issue.

In support of the branch of defendant’s cross motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the first and third through sixth causes of action, defendant submitted an affidavit by its claims examiner which established that defendant had timely mailed its verification requests [*2]and follow-up verification requests (see St. Vincent’s Hosp. of Richmond v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 50 AD3d 1123 [2008]). Defendant also demonstrated prima facie that it had not received the requested verification and, thus, that plaintiff’s first and third through sixth causes of action are premature (see 11 NYCRR 65-3.8 [a]; Central Suffolk Hosp. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 24 AD3d 492 [2005]). However, in opposition to the cross motion, plaintiff submitted an affidavit from an employee of National Billing & Collections, Inc., which affidavit was sufficient to give rise to a presumption that the requested verification had been mailed to, and received by, defendant (see Residential Holding Corp. v Scottsdale Ins. Co., 286 AD2d 679 [2001]). In light of the foregoing, there is a triable issue of fact as to whether these causes of action are premature (see Healing Health Prods., Inc. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 44 Misc 3d 59 [App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2014]).

Accordingly, the order, insofar as appealed from, is modified by providing that the branches of defendant’s cross motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the first and third through sixth causes of action are denied.

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

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Cheree A. Buggs, J.), entered February 14, 2014. The order denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and granted defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

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

In this action to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, plaintiff seeks to recover for medical supplies it provided to its assignor, who had sustained injuries in a motor vehicle accident that had occurred on March 20, 2012. After this action was commenced, defendant commenced a declaratory judgment action in the Supreme Court, Bronx County, against plaintiff and various other medical providers, as well as the allegedly injured assignor. On June 7, 2013, the Supreme Court granted defendant’s motion, “pursuant to CPLR 3215 and CPLR 3212 (b), seeking a default judgment or summary judgment” and found that the medical providers named therein, including plaintiff herein, as well as plaintiff’s assignor, were not entitled to recover no-fault benefits arising out of the motor vehicle accident that had occurred on March 20, 2012, and judgment was entered therein on August 13, 2013. In June 2013, plaintiff moved in the instant case for, among other things, summary judgment. Defendant cross-moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the action is barred by virtue of the declaratory judgment. By order entered February 14, 2014, the Civil Court denied plaintiff’s motion and granted defendant’s cross motion.

Contrary to plaintiff’s contention, the instant action is barred under the doctrine of res judicata based upon the declaratory judgment (see Vital Meridian Acupuncture, P.C. v Republic W. Ins. Co., 46 Misc 3d 147[A], 2015 NY Slip Op 50222[U] [App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2015]; EBM Med. Health Care, P.C. v Republic W. Ins., 38 Misc 3d 1 [App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2012]). To hold otherwise could result in a judgment in this action which would destroy or impair rights established by the Supreme Court (see Schuykill Fuel Corp. v Nieberg Realty Corp., 250 NY 304, 306—307 [1929]; Ava Acupuncture, P.C. v NY Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 34 Misc 3d 149[A], 2012 NY Slip Op 50233[U] [App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2012]). Moreover, the declaratory judgment is a conclusive final determination notwithstanding that it may have been entered on default (see Lazides v P & G Enters., 58 AD3d 607 [2009]; Matter of Allstate Ins. Co. v Williams, 29 AD3d 688, 690 [2006]; Matter of [*2]Eagle Ins. Co. v Facey, 272 AD2d 399 [2000]; Ava Acupuncture, P.C. v NY Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 34 Misc 3d 149[A], 2012 NY Slip Op 50233[U]). Plaintiff’s remaining contentions lack merit or are unpreserved for appellate review.

Accordingly, the order is affirmed.

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