SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, FIRST DEPARTMENT

Plaintiff appeals from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County (Robert R. Reed, J.), entered August 1, 2013, which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Per Curiam.

Order (Robert R. Reed, J.), entered August 1, 2013, reversed, with $10 costs, motion denied and complaint reinstated.

The action, seeking recovery of assigned first-party no-fault benefits, is not ripe for summary dismissal. While the record reflects that defendant properly paid a portion of the submitted claims for acupuncture services pursuant to the workers’ compensation fee schedule (see Akita Medical Acupuncture, P.C. v Clarendon Ins. Co., 41 Misc 3d 134[A], 2013 NY Slip Op 51860[U] {App Term, 1st Dept 2013]), triable issues remain with respect to the claims denied outright by defendant on the stated basis that the CPT codes billed under were “outside the scope of the provider’s specialty.” Even assuming, without deciding, that defendant’s affiant, a claims examiner, may fairly be considered an expert qualified to render an opinion on such matters (but cf. Kingsbrook Jewish Med. Ctr. v Allstate Ins. Co., 61 AD3d 13, 21-22 [2009]), the conclusory assertions set forth in her moving affidavit were insufficient to eliminate all triable issues of fact concerning the provider’s “specialty.” Defendant’s failure to meet that evidentiary burden mandates the denial of its motion, regardless of the sufficiency of the opposing papers (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.
Decision Date: March 21, 2014

[*1]

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Department, 2d, 11th and 13th Judicial Districts, March 21, 2014

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

Skenderis & Cornacchia, P.C., Long Island City (Anupama Karumanchi of counsel), for appellant.

Law Offices of Melissa Betancourt, P.C., Brooklyn (Melissa Bentancourt of counsel), for respondent.

Ordered that the order, insofar as appealed from, is reversed, without costs, and plaintiffs’ cross motion for summary judgment is denied.

In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and plaintiffs cross-moved for summary judgment. The Civil Court denied defendant’s motion on the ground that it was not made within 120 days of the filing of the notice of trial (see CPLR 3212 [a]), but granted plaintiffs’ cross motion, which was made several months later. Defendant appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of the order as granted plaintiffs’ cross motion for summary judgment.

It was improper for the Civil Court to consider plaintiffs’ untimely cross motion for summary judgment in the absence of a showing by plaintiffs of good cause for not serving the motion within 120 days of the filing of the notice of trial, the Civil Court equivalent of a note of issue (see Chimbay v Palma, 14 Misc 3d 130[A], 2007 NY Slip Op 50019[U]; [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2007]), as required by CPLR 3212 (a) (see Miceli v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 3 NY3d 725 [2004]; Brill v City of New York, 2 NY3d 648 [2004]). Indeed, the deadline imposed by CPLR 3212 (a) is strictly enforced, and without a showing of good cause, the court has no discretion to entertain the motion, regardless of its merit or lack of prejudice to the opposing party (see Miceli v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 3 NY3d at 726; Brill v City of New York, 2 NY3d at 652-653; Richman v Obiakor Obstetrics & Gynecology, P.C., 32 Misc 3d 135[A], 2011 NY Slip Op 51461[U]; [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2011]).

To the extent plaintiffs contend that defendant never objected to their cross motion as untimely, we conclude that the absence of an objection does not constitute good cause to consider an otherwise untimely motion. As noted, the 120-day time limit specified in CPLR 3212 (a) is strict and serves to eliminate the “sloppy practice” of late summary judgment motions and promote “a habit of compliance with the statutory deadlines” for such motions (Brill v City of New York, 2 NY3d at 653-654).{**43 Misc 3d at 77} Thus, plaintiffs, having successfully opposed defendant’s summary judgment motion as untimely, cannot escape the consequences of their own untimely cross motion, which was made four months later. In these circumstances, the Civil Court should have denied plaintiffs’ cross motion, as it did defendant’s, as untimely.

Accordingly, the order, insofar as appealed from, is reversed, and plaintiffs’ cross motion for summary judgment is denied.

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

[*2]

SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, FIRST DEPARTMENT

Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Bronx County (Raul Cruz, J.), entered on or about November 3, 2010, after a nonjury trial, in favor of plaintiff and awarding it damages in the principal sum of $3,045.08.

Per Curiam.

Judgment (Raul Cruz, J.), entered on or about November 3, 2010, affirmed, with $25 costs.

We agree that defendant failed to meet its evidentiary burden of establishing the lack of medical necessity of the diagnostic testing giving rise to plaintiff’s claim for assigned first-party no-fault benefits. The trial court was entitled to reject the sparse and confusing opinion testimony offered by defendant’s medical expert — which reflected the expert’s confessed lack of knowledge as to the assignor’s medical condition at the time of testing — even though the expert’s testimony was unopposed (see Chabourne & Parke, LLP v HGK Assets Mgt., Inc., 295 AD2d 208, 209 [2002]). Any misstatement in the court’s written decision as to the source of the medical records reviewed by defendant’s expert does not serve to undermine the court’s otherwise proper resolution of the matter.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.
Decision Date: March 19, 2014

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 (Katherine A. Levine, J.), entered January 12, 2012. The order denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

ORDERED that the order is modified by providing that the branches of defendant’s motion seeking summary judgment dismissing plaintiff’s first through fourth causes of action are granted; as so modified, the order is affirmed, without costs.

In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, defendant appeals from an order of the Civil Court denying defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

In support of its motion, defendant submitted an affidavit from an employee of the company that had been retained by defendant to schedule independent medical examinations (IMEs). The affidavit established that the IME scheduling letters had been timely mailed pursuant to the company’s standard office practices and procedures (see St. Vincent’s Hosp. of Richmond v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 50 AD3d 1123 [2008] Delta Diagnostic Radiology, P.C. v Chubb Group of Ins., 17 Misc 3d 16 [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2007]). Defendant also submitted an affidavit from the chiropractor who was to perform the IMEs, which affidavit was sufficient to establish that plaintiff’s assignor had failed to appear for the duly scheduled IMEs (see Stephen Fogel Psychological, P.C. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 35 AD3d 720 [2006]). In addition, an affidavit executed by defendant’s employee demonstrated that the denial of claim forms with respect to the claims at issue in plaintiff’s first through fourth causes of action had been timely mailed (see St. Vincent’s Hosp. of Richmond, 50 AD3d 1123; Delta Diagnostic Radiology, P.C., 17 Misc 3d 16). Since the appearance of an assignor at a duly scheduled IME is a condition precedent to the insurer’s liability on the policy (see Insurance Department Regulations [11 NYCRR] § 65-1.1; Stephen Fogel Psychological, P.C., 35 AD3d at 722), the branches of defendant’s motion seeking summary judgment dismissing these causes of action should have been granted.

With respect to the claims at issue in plaintiff’s fifth through ninth causes of action, the affidavit of defendant’s employee did not establish, as a matter of law, that these claims had been timely denied. Contrary to defendant’s contention, defendant’s defense based upon the assignor’s failure to appear for IMEs is subject to preclusion if defendant failed to timely deny these claims (see Westchester Med. Ctr. v Lincoln Gen. Ins. Co., 60 AD3d 1045 [2d Dept 2009], lv denied 13 NY3d 714 [2009] see also Eastern Star Acupuncture, P.C. v American Tr. Ins. Co., 33 Misc 3d 141[A], 2011 NY Slip Op 52205[U] [App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2011] but see Unitrin Advantage Ins. Co. v Bayshore Physical Therapy, PLLC, 82 AD3d 559 [1st Dept 2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 705 [2011]). As a result, the Civil Court properly denied the branches of [*2]defendant’s motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the fifth through ninth causes of action.

Accordingly, the order is modified by providing that the branches of defendant’s motion seeking summary judgment dismissing plaintiff’s first through fourth causes of action are granted.

Pesce, P.J., Aliotta and Solomon, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: March 17, 2014

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 (Katherine A. Levine, J.), entered January 12, 2012. The order denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

ORDERED that the order is modified by providing that the branches of defendant’s motion seeking summary judgment dismissing plaintiff’s first, second, and fifth through eighth causes of action are granted; as so modified, the order is affirmed, without costs.

In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, defendant appeals from an order of the Civil Court which denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

In support of its motion, defendant submitted an affidavit from an employee of the company that had been retained by defendant to schedule independent medical examinations (IMEs). The affidavit established that the IME scheduling letters had been timely mailed pursuant to the company’s standard office practices and procedures (see St. Vincent’s Hosp. of Richmond v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 50 AD3d 1123 [2008] Delta Diagnostic Radiology, P.C. v Chubb Group of Ins., 17 Misc 3d 16 [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2007]). Defendant also submitted an affidavit from the chiropractor who was to perform the IMEs, which affidavit was sufficient to establish that plaintiff’s assignor had failed to appear for the duly scheduled IMEs (see Stephen Fogel Psychological, P.C. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 35 AD3d 720 [2006]). In addition, an affidavit executed by defendant’s employee demonstrated that the denial of claim forms with respect to the claims at issue in plaintiff’s first, second, fifth, sixth, seventh and eighth causes of action had been timely mailed (see St. Vincent’s Hosp. of Richmond, 50 AD3d 1123; Delta Diagnostic Radiology, P.C., 17 Misc 3d 16). Since the appearance of an assignor at a duly scheduled IME is a condition precedent to the insurer’s liability on the policy (see Insurance Department Regulations [11 NYCRR] § 65-1.1; Stephen Fogel Psychological, P.C., 35 AD3d at 722), the branches of defendant’s motion seeking summary judgment dismissing these causes of action should have been granted.

With respect to the claims at issue in plaintiff’s third and fourth causes of action, the affidavit by defendant’s employee did not establish, as a matter of law, that these claims had been timely denied. Contrary to defendant’s contention, defendant’s defense based upon the assignor’s failure to appear for IMEs is subject to preclusion if defendant failed to timely deny these claims (see Westchester Med. Ctr. v Lincoln Gen. Ins. Co., 60 AD3d 1045 [2d Dept 2009], lv denied 13 NY3d 714 [2009] see also Eastern Star Acupuncture, P.C. v American Tr. Ins. Co., 33 Misc 3d 141[A], 2011 NY Slip Op 52205[U] [App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2011] but see Unitrin Advantage Ins. Co. v Bayshore Physical Therapy, PLLC, 82 AD3d 559 [1st Dept 2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 705 [2011]). As a result, the Civil Court properly denied the branches of [*2]defendant’s motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the third and fourth causes of action.

Accordingly, the order is modified by providing that the branches of defendant’s motion seeking summary judgment dismissing plaintiff’s first, second, and fifth through eighth causes of action are granted.

Pesce, P.J., Aliotta and Solomon, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: March 17, 2014

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 (Katherine A. Levine, J.), entered January 13, 2012. The order, insofar as appealed from, denied defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

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

In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, the Civil Court denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, stating that the only issue for trial was the mailing of the denial (see CPLR 3212 [g]).

A review of the record reveals that there is a question of fact as to whether defendant timely denied plaintiff’s claim after plaintiff’s assignor had failed to appear for duly scheduled independent medical examinations. Contrary to defendant’s contention, such a defense is subject to preclusion if defendant’s denial of claim form was untimely (see Westchester Med. Ctr. v Lincoln Gen. Ins. Co., 60 AD3d 1045 [2d Dept 2009], lv denied 13 NY3d 714 [2009] see also Eastern Star Acupuncture, P.C. v American Tr. Ins. Co., 33 Misc 3d 141[A], 2011 NY Slip Op 52205[U] [App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2011] but see Unitrin Advantage Ins. Co. v Bayshore Physical Therapy, PLLC, 82 AD3d 559 [1st Dept 2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 705 [2011]).

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

Pesce, P.J., Aliotta and Solomon, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: March 17, 2014

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 (Robin Kelly Sheares, J.), entered December 20, 2011. 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, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Civil Court which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

The affidavit of defendant’s no-fault claims examiner established that defendant had timely mailed its verification requests and follow-up verification requests (see St. Vincent’s Hosp. of Richmond v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 50 AD3d 1123 [2008] Delta Diagnostic Radiology, P.C. v Chubb Group of Ins., 17 Misc 3d 16 [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2007]). Defendant demonstrated that it had not received all of the verification requested, and plaintiff did not show that such verification had been provided to defendant prior to the commencement of the action. Thus, the 30-day period within which defendant was required to pay or deny the claims did not begin to run (see Insurance Department Regulations [11 NYCRR] § 65-3.8 [a] Central Suffolk Hosp. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 24 AD3d 492 [2005] Hospital for Joint Diseases v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 8 AD3d 533 [2004] D & R Med. Supply v. American Tr. Ins. Co., 32 Misc 3d 144[A], 2011 NY Slip Op 51727[U] [App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2011]), and plaintiff’s action is premature. Consequently, the Civil Court properly granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Accordingly, the order is affirmed.

Pesce, P.J., Aliotta and Solomon, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: March 17, 2014

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, Queens County (William A. Viscovich, J.), entered November 17, 2011, deemed from a judgment of the same court entered December 14, 2011 (see CPLR 5501 [c]). The judgment, entered pursuant to the November 17, 2011 order granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment, dismissed the complaint

ORDERED that the judgment is reversed, with $30 costs, the order entered November 17, 2011 is vacated, and defendant’s motion for summary judgment is denied.

In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Civil Court which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. A judgment was subsequently entered, from which the appeal is deemed to have been taken (see CPLR 5501 [c]).

Defendant’s motion for summary judgment was based upon plaintiff’s failure to appear for scheduled examinations under oath (EUOs). However, defendant failed to proffer evidence in admissible form establishing when it had received plaintiff’s claim forms (see Five Boro Psychological Servs., P.C. v Progressive Northeastern Ins. Co., 32 Misc 3d 136[A], 2011 NY Slip Op 51528[U] [App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2011]). Consequently, defendant did not establish that it had tolled the 30-day period within which defendant was required to pay or deny the claims so that it may be determined, as a matter of law, that its NF-10 denial of claim form had been timely mailed. As defendant has not demonstrated that it is not precluded from raising its defense that plaintiff failed to appear for duly scheduled EUOs (see Westchester Med. Ctr. v Lincoln Gen. Ins. Co., 60 AD3d 1045 [2d Dept 2009] cf. Unitrin Advantage Ins. Co. v Bayshore Physical Therapy, PLLC, 82 AD3d 559 [1st Dept 2011]), its motion for summary judgment should have been denied.

Accordingly, the judgment is reversed, the order entered November 17, 2011 is vacated, and defendant’s motion for summary judgment is denied.

Pesce, P.J., Aliotta and Solomon, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: March 17, 2014

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

Appeal from a judgment of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Margaret A. Pui Yee Chan, J.), entered July 26, 2011. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, dismissed the complaint.

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

In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, a nonjury trial was held, limited, pursuant to stipulations, to defendant’s defense of lack of medical necessity. After the trial, the Civil Court found that defendant’s doctor’s testimony had demonstrated that the supplies in question were not medically necessary and that plaintiff had failed to rebut this showing. Subsequently, a judgment was entered dismissing the complaint.

On appeal, plaintiff does not challenge the substance of defendant’s expert witness’s testimony. Instead, plaintiff objects to the admission of the peer review reports. At a trial on the issue of medical necessity, although peer review reports are not admissible to prove the lack of medical necessity, in the case at bar, defendant properly established the lack of medical necessity at trial through the testimony of its expert witness based on his independent review of plaintiff’s assignor’s medical records. Thus, plaintiff’s contention that reversal is warranted because the court admitted the peer review reports into evidence lacks merit (see Alev Med. Supply, Inc. v Government Employees Ins. Co., 40 Misc 3d 128[A], 2013 NY Slip Op 51096[U] [App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2013] A-Quality Med. Supply v GEICO Gen. Ins. Co., 39 Misc 3d 24 [App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2013]).

Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

Pesce, P.J., Aliotta and Solomon, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: March 17, 2014

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 (Robin S. Garson, J.), entered July 2, 2010. The order, insofar as appealed from, denied defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

ORDERED that the order, insofar as appealed from, is reversed, with $30 costs, and defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted.

Insofar as is relevant to this appeal, in this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, defendant cross-moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that defendant had timely and properly denied the claims at issue based on plaintiff’s assignor’s failure to appear for duly scheduled examinations under oath (EUOs). Defendant appeals from so much of an order of the Civil Court as denied defendant’s cross motion.

Defendant established that the time to pay or deny plaintiff’s claim had been tolled by the timely issuance of examination under oath (EUO) scheduling letters (see St. Vincent’s Hosp. of Richmond v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 50 AD3d 1123 [2008]); that plaintiff had failed to appear for either of the properly scheduled EUOs; and that the claims had been timely denied on that ground (see Arco Med. NY, P.C. v Lancer Ins. Co., 34 Misc 3d 134[A], 2011 NY Slip Op 52382[U] [App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2011]). Since an assignor’s appearance at an EUO “is a condition precedent to the insurer’s liability on the policy” (see Stephen Fogel Psychological, P.C., 35 AD3d 720, 722 [2006]), the order, insofar as appealed from, is reversed and defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted.

Pesce, P.J., Aliotta and Solomon, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: March 11, 2014