SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

APPELLATE TERM: 2nd and 11th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Eileen Nadelson, J.), entered December 19, 2005. The order denied defendant’s motion to vacate the default judgment and to compel plaintiff to accept its late answer.

Order modified by granting defendant’s motion to the extent of vacating the default judgment entered against it; as so modified, affirmed without costs.

In this action to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, it is undisputed that defendant served an untimely answer and that thereafter plaintiff sought and obtained a default judgment. Defendant moved to vacate the default judgment and to compel
plaintiff to accept its answer on the ground that plaintiff waived the untimeliness of the answer by failing to reject it. Defendant’s motion was denied and this appeal ensued.

A plaintiff’s retention of an answer without a timely objection constitutes a waiver of objection as to untimeliness and such a waiver precludes the grant of a default judgment (see CPLR 2101 [f]; Celleri v Pabon, 299 AD2d 385 [2002]; Wittlin v Schapiro’s Wine Co., 178 AD2d 160 [1991]; Neurology and Acupuncture Service, P.C. v Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co., ___ Misc 3d ___, 2006 NY Slip Op ______ [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists]; A.M.B. Med., P.L.L.C. v Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co., Misc 3d ___, 2006 NY Slip Op [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists]; Abernathy v Ali, 3 Misc 3d 136[A], 2004 NY Slip Op 50509[U] [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists]). Accordingly, to the extent plaintiff’s application for a default judgment was premised upon plaintiff’s representation that defendant was in default, such representation was incorrect and vacatur of the “default” judgment was warranted without regard to whether defendant demonstrated a meritorious defense (see Avenoso v Avenoso, 266 AD2d 326 [1999]; see generally CPLR 5015 [a] [3]). Since plaintiff waived any objection to the [*2]untimeliness of the answer, plaintiff is deemed to have accepted the answer. Consequently, to the extent that defendant sought to compel acceptance of the answer, that branch of defendant’s motion is denied as academic.

Pesce, P.J., Rios and Belen, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: January 31, 2007

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

APPELLATE TERM: 2nd and 11th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Kathy J. King, J.), entered October 13, 2005. The order denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment.

Order reversed without costs, plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment granted and matter remanded to the court below for a calculation of statutory interest and an assessment of attorney’s fees.

In an action to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, a plaintiff generally establishes its prima facie entitlement to summary judgment by proof of the submission of a statutory claim form, setting forth the fact and the amount of the loss sustained, and that payment of no-fault benefits is overdue (see e.g. Insurance Law § 5106 [a]; Mary Immaculate Hosp. v Allstate Ins. Co., 5 AD3d 742 [2004]; Amaze Med. Supply v Eagle Ins. Co., 2 Misc 3d 128[A], 2003 NY Slip Op 51701[U] [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists]). Inasmuch as defendant raised no issue in the court below or on appeal with respect to plaintiff’s establishment of its prima facie case, we do not pass on the propriety of the implicit determination of the court below with respect thereto.

In opposition to plaintiff’s motion, defendant’s no-fault litigation examiner stated that defendant’s denial was based upon plaintiff’s assignor’s nonattendance at independent medical examinations (IMEs), requests for which were made prior to defendant’s receipt of the claim form. As plaintiff correctly asserted, defendant was required to establish by proof in admissible form that the IME notifications were mailed and that plaintiff’s assignor failed to appear (see Stephen Fogel Psychological, P.C. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., ___ AD3d ___, 2006 NY Slip Op 09604 [2d Dept, Dec. 19, 2006]). The record reflects that Allegiance Health was responsible for scheduling the IMEs and for mailing the IME notices. Since defendant’s examiner was not [*2]responsible for the scheduling of IMEs or for the mailing of IME notifications, her affidavit was insufficient to establish proper mailing of the IME request letters or plaintiff’s assignor’s failure to appear for the scheduled IMEs. Accordingly, defendant failed to raise a triable issue of fact.

In view of the foregoing, plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is granted, and the matter is remanded to the court below for the calculation of statutory interest and an assessment of attorney’s fees pursuant to Insurance Law § 5106 (a) and the regulations promulgated thereunder.

Pesce, P.J., Rios and Belen, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: January 31, 2007

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

APPELLATE TERM: 2nd and 11th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Milagros A. Matos, J.), entered October 27, 2005. The order, insofar as appealed from, denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment.

Order, insofar as appealed from, affirmed without costs.

In this action to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, we do not pass on the propriety of the determination of the court below that plaintiff established its prima facie case, as defendant raises no issue with respect thereto.

Defendant’s assertion that it timely denied the claims lacks merit because the
record does not contain an affidavit from a person with personal knowledge either stating that the denial of claim forms were mailed or setting forth “a sufficiently detailed description of standard office mailing procedure so as to give rise to the presumption of mailing” (S&M Supply Inc. v Progressive Ins. Co., 8 Misc 3d 138[A], 2005 NY Slip Op 51312[U] [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists]). Since defendant failed to establish that it paid or denied the claims within the 30-day prescribed period (11 NYCRR 65-3.8 [c]), it is precluded from raising most defenses including its defense of lack of medical necessity (see Presbyterian Hosp. in City of N.Y. v Maryland Cas. Co., 90 NY2d 274, 282 [1997]) and its defenses of fraudulent billing and excessive fees (see Careplus Med. Supply Inc. v State-Wide Ins. Co., 11 Misc 3d 29 [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2005]).

However, defendant was not precluded from asserting its defense that the collision was in furtherance of an insurance fraud scheme, despite the untimely denial of the claims (see Matter of Metro Med. Diagnostics v Eagle Ins. Co., 293 AD2d 751 [2002]). We find that the affidavit of defendant’s investigator was sufficient to demonstrate that the defense was based upon a [*2]“founded belief that the alleged injur[ies] do[] not arise out of an insured incident” (Central Gen. Hosp. v Chubb Group of Ins. Cos., 90 NY2d 195, 199 [1997]). Since defendant raised a triable issue of fact as to whether there was a lack of coverage, the lower court properly denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (see id.; Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557 [1980]).

Pesce, P.J., Rios and Belen, JJ., concur.

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

APPELLATE TERM: 2nd and 11th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Arlene Bluth, J.), entered November 29, 2005. The order denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment.

Order affirmed without costs.

In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment was supported by an affirmation from plaintiff’s counsel, an affidavit by a corporate officer of plaintiff, and various documents annexed thereto. The affidavit executed by plaintiff’s corporate officer stated in a conclusory manner that the documents attached to plaintiff’s motion papers were plaintiff’s business records. In opposition, defendant argued, inter alia, that plaintiff’s moving papers failed to establish plaintiff’s prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. Plaintiff appeals from the denial of its motion for summary judgment.

Inasmuch as the affidavit submitted by plaintiff’s corporate officer was insufficient to establish that said officer possessed personal knowledge of plaintiff’s practices and procedures so as to lay a foundation for the admission, as business records, of the documents annexed to plaintiff’s moving papers, the court correctly held that plaintiff failed to make a prima facie showing of its entitlement to summary judgment (see Dan Med., P.C. v New York Cent. Mut. [*2]Fire Ins. Co., ___ Misc 3d ___, 2006 NY Slip Op 26483 [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists]). Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment was properly denied.

Pesce, P.J., Rios and Belen, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: January 26, 2007

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

APPELLATE TERM: 2nd and 11th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Kathy J. King, J.), entered October 13, 2005. The order granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and denied defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment.

Order affirmed without costs.

In this action to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, we do not pass on the propriety of the determination of the court below that plaintiff established its prima facie case, as defendant raises no issue with respect thereto.

Defendant failed to establish timely mailing of its denial forms. The affidavit of its claims processor neither alleged a mailing nor “a sufficiently detailed description of defendant’s standard office mailing procedure so as to give rise to the presumption of
mailing” (AVA Acupuncture, P.C. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 13 Misc 3d 140[A], 2006 NY Slip Op 52256[U] [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists]; see New York & Presbyt. Hosp. v Allstate Ins. Co., 29 AD3d 547 [2006]; Residential Holding Corp. v Scottsdale Ins. Co., 286 AD2d 679 [2001]; Vista Surgical Supplies, Inc. v Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 12 Misc 3d 147[A], 2006 NY Slip Op 51556[U] [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists]). While defendant’s additional affidavits, produced for the first time in defendant’s papers submitted in reply to plaintiff’s opposition to its cross motion, may have established a timely mailing of its denial forms, they were properly disregarded by the court below and may not be considered on appeal (Rubens v [*2]Fund, 23 AD3d 636, 637 [2005]; Lazar v Nico Indus., 128 AD2d 408, 409-410 [1987]; Executive MRI Imaging, P.C. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 13 Misc 3d 140[A], 2006 NY Slip Op 52250[U] [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists]). Accordingly, defendant was precluded
from raising the defense asserted herein (see Presbyterian Hosp. in City of N.Y. v Maryland Cas. Co., 90 NY2d 274, 282 [1997]).

Pesce, P.J., Rios and Belen, JJ., concur.

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

APPELLATE TERM: 2nd and 11th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (George J. Silver, J.), entered October 20, 2005. The order denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment.

Order affirmed without costs.

In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, plaintiff moved for summary judgment. The court below denied the motion on the ground that plaintiff’s moving papers failed to allege personal knowledge of the mailing of the claims. Plaintiff appeals from the denial of its motion for summary judgment.

On appeal, defendant raises for the first time that the affidavit by plaintiff’s corporate officer, submitted in support of the motion, failed to lay a proper foundation for the documents annexed to plaintiff’s moving papers and that, as a result, plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case.

The affidavit submitted by plaintiff’s corporate officer was insufficient to establish that said officer possessed personal knowledge of plaintiff’s practices and procedures so as to lay a foundation for the admission, as business records, of the documents annexed to plaintiff’s moving papers. Accordingly, plaintiff failed to make a prima facie showing that it submitted its claim forms to defendant thereby entitling it to summary judgment (see Dan Med., P.C. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., ___ Misc 3d ___, 2006 NY Slip Op 26483 [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists]). We note that a review of the record on appeal in the case of Stephen Fogel Psychological, P.C. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co. (___ AD3d ___, 2006 NY Slip Op 09604 [2d Dept, Dec. 19, 2006]), as well as of the briefs submitted to the Appellate Division on said appeal, reveals that the issue that movant failed to establish a prima facie case on the motion for [*2]summary judgment was raised for the first time on appeal. Although specific objection was raised by the opposition that said issue may not be considered by the Appellate Division, the court
nevertheless determined the appeal based upon said issue. In view of the foregoing, we also consider defendant’s argument, although raised for the first time on appeal, and hold that plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment was properly denied.

Pesce, P.J., Rios and Belen, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: January 12, 2007

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

APPELLATE TERM: 2nd and 11th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Eileen Nadelson, J.), entered October 4, 2005. The order denied defendant’s motion to sever the causes of action and granted plaintiff’s cross motion for summary judgment.

Order modified by denying plaintiff’s cross motion for summary judgment without prejudice to renewal upon the completion of discovery; as so modified, affirmed without costs.

Plaintiff commenced this action to recover first-party no-fault benefits as the assignee of five assignors. The claims arose out of four separate accidents, and defendant moved to sever the claims into separate actions pursuant to CPLR 603. Plaintiff cross-moved for summary judgment. By order entered October 3, 2005, the court below granted plaintiff’s cross motion and denied defendant’s motion as moot.

In State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co. v Mallela (4 NY3d 313 [2005]), the Court of Appeals held that fraudulently incorporated medical corporations were not entitled to reimbursement of no-fault benefits. The Court noted that 11 NYCRR 65-3.16 (a) (12), which states that “[a] provider of health care services is not eligible for reimbursement under section 5102 (a) (1) of the Insurance Law if the provider fails to meet any applicable New York State or local licensing requirement,” specifically “excluded from the meaning of basic economic loss’ payments made to unlicensed or fraudulently licensed providers, thus rendering them ineligible for reimbursement” (Mallela, 4 NY3d at 320). The defense that a provider is fraudulently licensed and hence ineligible for reimbursement of no-fault benefits under 11 NYCRR 65-3.16 (a) (12) is a nonwaivable defense and is therefore not subject to the 30-day preclusion rule (see First Help Acupuncture P.C. v State Farm Ins. Co., 12 Misc 3d 130[A], 2006 NY Slip Op 51043[U] [App [*2]Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists]; see also Allstate Ins. Co. v Belt Parkway Imaging,
P.C., ___ AD3d ___, 2006 NY Slip Op 07279 [1st Dept]; Metroscan Imaging P.C. v GEICO Ins. Co., 13 Misc 3d 35 [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2006]). Defendant’s opposition papers suffice to raise issues as to who really operated and controlled plaintiff (see Lexington Acupuncture, P.C. v State Farm Ins. Co., 12 Misc 3d 90 [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2006]). Consequently, so much of defendant’s discovery requests as seek information regarding whether plaintiff was fraudulently incorporated are material and necessary (see CPLR 3101). Accordingly, plaintiff’s cross motion for summary judgment was premature pending the completion of discovery (see CPLR 3212 [f]; Lexington Acupuncture, P.C. v State Farm Ins. Co., 12 Misc 3d 90, supra) since the opposition papers set forth that facts essential to justify opposition may exist but cannot be stated (see CPLR 3212 [f]). In view of the foregoing, the court below should have denied said cross motion without prejudice to renewal upon the completion of discovery.

Defendant’s answer asserts, inter alia, that plaintiff was fraudulently incorporated, thereby indicating that the five claims are likely to raise common issues of law or fact (cf. Radiology Resource Network, P.C. v Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co., 12 AD3d 185 [2004]). Since defendant did not otherwise show prejudice to a substantial right, it was not an improvident exercise of discretion for the court below to deny defendant’s motion to sever (see e.g. McCrimmon v County of Nassau, 302 AD2d 372 [2003]).

Pesce, P.J., Golia and Belen, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: January 8, 2007

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

APPELLATE TERM: 2nd and 11th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Milagros A. Matos, J.), entered November 17, 2005. The order denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment.

Order affirmed without costs.

In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment was supported by an affirmation from plaintiff’s counsel, an affidavit by a corporate officer of plaintiff, and various documents annexed thereto. The affidavit executed by plaintiff’s corporate officer stated in a conclusory manner that the documents attached to plaintiff’s motion papers were plaintiff’s
business records. In opposition, defendant argued, inter alia, that the affidavit by plaintiff’s corporate officer failed to lay a proper foundation for the documents annexed to plaintiff’s moving papers and that, as a result, plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case. Plaintiff appeals from the denial of its motion for summary judgment.

Inasmuch as the affidavit submitted by plaintiff’s corporate officer was insufficient to establish that said officer possessed personal knowledge of plaintiff’s practices and procedures so as to lay a foundation for the admission, as business records, of the documents annexed to plaintiff’s moving papers, plaintiff failed to make a prima facie showing of its entitlement to summary judgment (see Dan Med., P.C. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., ___ Misc 3d ___, 2006 NY Slip Op 26483 [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists]). Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment was properly denied.

Pesce, P.J., Weston Patterson and Belen, JJ., concur.

[*1]

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Department, January 3, 2007

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

Saiber Schlesinger Satz & Goldstein, LLC, New York City (Agnes I. Rymer and David J. D’Aloia of counsel), and McDonnell & Adels, P.C., Garden City (Martha S. Henley of counsel), for appellant. Gary Tsirelman P.C., Brooklyn, for respondent. Eliot Spitzer, Attorney General, New York City (Robert H. Easton and Benjamin N. Gutman of counsel), for Howard B. Mills III, amicus curiae. Michael A. Taromina, Paterson, New Jersey, for Acupuncture Society of New York, amicus curiae.

{**15 Misc 3d at 105} OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

Order reversed without costs and matter remanded to the court below for a new calculation of interest in accordance with the decision herein.

In this action to recover overdue assigned first-party no-fault benefits, the parties stipulated to settle the principal amount owed on all claims for which defendant’s denials were timely and for which defendant issued no denials, as well as the statutory interest and attorney’s fees due thereon. Unable to agree on the date interest accrued on the claims for which defendant issued untimely denials, the parties stipulated to submit the question to the court below. The plaintiff sought interest from 30 days after the claims’ submission, while defendant insisted that interest accrued only from the date plaintiff commenced the action. The court found for plaintiff and defendant appeals.

An insurer is obligated to “pay or deny” a claim within 30 calendar days of the receipt of [*2]proof of claim (11 NYCRR 65-3.8 [c]).^[FN*] Interest accrues when the payment of no-fault benefits is “overdue” (11 NYCRR 65-3.9 [a]), and benefits are overdue only if not “paid” within 30 calendar days of when the insurer receives a claim or verification (Insurance Law § 5106 [a]; 11 NYCRR 65-3.8 [a]; e.g. Presbyterian Hosp. in City of N.Y. v Maryland Cas. Co., 90 NY2d 274, 278 [1997]; New York & Presbyt. Hosp. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 5 AD3d 568, 570 [2004]; see generally 70A NY Jur 2d, Insurance § 1801). The effect of a denial on interest is set forth in 11 NYCRR 65-3.9 (c) which{**15 Misc 3d at 106} states that an “applicant” must request arbitration or commence an action “within 30 days after the receipt of a denial of claim form or payment of benefits calculated pursuant to Insurance Department regulations” and bars interest “until such action is taken.”

“[I]nterest . . . [is a] prescribed sanction[ ] only in late payment circumstances, not as to untimely denials of claims” (Presbyterian Hosp. in City of N.Y., 90 NY2d at 278; see Smithtown Gen. Hosp. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 207 AD2d 338, 339 [1994]). Where, as here, there is no payment and an untimely denial, interest accrues 30 days from the date the claim is submitted (11 NYCRR 65-3.8 [a] [1]; 65-3.9 [a]; Hempstead Gen. Hosp. v Insurance Co. of N. Am., 208 AD2d 501 [1994]). Interest is thereafter stayed only where the claimant fails to submit the claim to arbitration or to commence an action within 30 days after receipt of the untimely denial of claim and resumes when either action is taken (11 NYCRR 65-3.9 [c]; Massapequa Gen. Hosp. v Travelers Ins. Co., 104 AD2d 638, 640 [1984]; State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v Pfeiffer, 95 AD2d 806 [1983]).

Noting that 11 NYCRR 65-3.9 (a) addresses both “applicant” and “assignee,” the court below construed the absence of a reference to an assignee in 11 NYCRR 65-3.9 (c) to manifest the intent of the Superintendent of Insurance to exclude assignees from the requirement that an “applicant” seek arbitration or commence an action within 30 days of the receipt of the denial of claim form or be barred from interest “until such action is taken.” However, in an amicus brief, the Superintendent states that in promulgating 11 NYCRR 65-3.9 (c), the Department of Insurance had no intent to distinguish eligible injured persons from their assignees when it provided that interest on denied claims is tolled until the “applicant” seeks arbitration or commences an action, notwithstanding what it characterizes as a “redundant” reference to assignees in 11 NYCRR 65-3.9 (a). “In matters of statutory and regulatory interpretation . . . legislative intent is the great and controlling principle, and the proper judicial function is to discern and apply the will of the [enactors]” (Matter of ATM One v Landaverde, 2 NY3d 472, 476-477 [2004] [internal quotation marks omitted]). As the Legislature granted the Superintendent “broad power to interpret, clarify, and implement the legislative policy” in the no-fault arena (Matter of Medical Socy. of State of N.Y. v Serio, 100 NY2d 854, 863-864 [2003] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Insurance Law §§ 301, 5103 [d]; § 5106 [a]; § 5108 [b]),{**15 Misc 3d at 107} when the Superintendent “properly craft[s] a rule within the scope of his [or her] authority, that rule has the force of law and represents the policy choice of this State” (State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v Mallela, 4 NY3d 313, 321 [2005]). Further, an agency’s interpretation of a regulation it promulgated “is entitled to deference” (Matter of 427 W. 51st St. Owners Corp. v Division of Hous. & Community Renewal, 3 NY3d 337, 342 [2004] [internal quotation marks omitted]). Accordingly, [*3]deference must be accorded the Superintendent’s expression of intent herein with respect to the no-fault regulations, in light of the Superintendent’s “special competence and expertise with respect to the insurance industry” (Matter of Medical Socy. of State of N.Y. v Serio, 100 NY2d at 864 [internal quotation marks omitted]) unless, according to the normative rules of construction, the purported intent is “unreasonable or irrational” (Matter of Rodriguez v Perales, 86 NY2d 361, 367 [1995]) or so “conflicts with the plain meaning of the promulgated language” that the courts are obligated to disregard it (Matter of Visiting Nurse Serv. of N.Y. Home Care v New York State Dept. of Health, 5 NY3d 499, 506 [2005]).

To the extent that an issue of regulatory construction is presented, in the first instance we must consider the text’s “plain meaning” (Matter of Jansen Ct. Homeowners Assn. v City of New York, 17 AD3d 588, 589 [2005]). Plaintiff and, in an amicus brief, the Board of Advisers of the Acupuncture Society of New York, contend that the purported significance of the use of the terms “applicant” and “assignee” in 11 NYCRR 65-3.9 (a) and the use of only the term “applicant” in 11 NYCRR 65-3.9 (c) was intentional, invoking the rule of construction that the “failure of the Legislature to include a matter within the scope of an act may be construed as an indication that its exclusion was intended” (McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 1, Statutes § 74). However, it is also well settled that “a statute or ordinance must be construed as a whole and that its various sections must be considered together and with reference to each other” (Matter of Notre Dame Leasing v Rosario, 2 NY3d 459, 464 [2004] [internal quotation marks omitted]) and “are to be so interpreted as to give effect to every part thereof . . . and any construction which deprives any part of a statute of effect and meaning, when it is susceptible of another interpretation giving effect to every part, is avoided” (McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 1, Statutes § 231, Comment). The aforementioned rule applies equally to the construction of regulations.{**15 Misc 3d at 108}

A review of the use of “applicant,” “eligible injured person” and “assignee” in the no-fault regulations reveals that, while they are often employed interchangeably and occasionally redundantly, context invariably yields content. Many regulations refer to “applicant” generically, where eligible injured persons and their provider-assignees are clearly meant (e.g. 11 NYCRR 65-3.2 [b]; 65-3.3 [a]; 65-3.8 [b]; 65-4.2 [b] [1] [i]). Other regulations refer to “applicant” when only an eligible injured person can be meant (11 NYCRR 65-3.8 [g]), and still others address, variously, an “eligible injured person or such person’s attorney” (11 NYCRR 65-3.6 [a]) and an “applicant and such person’s attorney” (11 NYCRR 65-3.6 [b]) when provider-assignees are also contemplated. Still other regulations refer only to “applicant” when either an eligible injured person or both eligible injured persons and their assignees are meant, depending on the remedy provided therein (11 NYCRR 65-3.5 [e], [l]). These citations are merely illustrative of the categories discussed (e.g. 11 NYCRR 65-3.8 [b] [2] [“applicant” means the eligible injured person in one clause and both the eligible injured person and his or her assignee in another clause]).

Indeed, the Superintendent, whose interpretation of the Insurance Department’s regulations, as noted, is entitled to deference, acknowledges that the terms “applicant” and “assignee” are used elsewhere in the regulations where “applicant,” employed generically, and in lieu of “claimant” (Insurance Law § 5106 [a]), would have sufficed (e.g. 11 NYCRR 65-3.10 [a]; 11 NYCRR 65-4.8 [b]). The Superintendent urges that such is the case with 11 NYCRR 65-3.9 (a) (see McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 1, Statutes § 231, Comment [“It is recognized . . . that the drafters of statutes do not always use the most apt words to express their intent; . . . that words [*4]are frequently used in a statute which are not necessary, but are to some extent superfluous”]).

There is an additional reason why it is not reasonable to suppose the Insurance Department intended to omit reference to assignees in 11 NYCRR 65-3.9 (c). The interest provision, presently at 24% per annum, is punitive in nature (Dermatossian v New York City Tr. Auth., 67 NY2d 219, 224 [1986]) and “designed to inflict an economic sanction or penalty on those insurers who do not comply” (Cardinell v Allstate Ins. Co., 302 AD2d 772, 774 [2003]). As the No-Fault Law is in derogation of the common law and “must be strictly construed” (Presbyterian Hosp. in City of N.Y. v Atlanta Cas. Co., 210 AD2d 210, 211{**15 Misc 3d at 109} [1994]), the regulations must be interpreted in a manner conducive to the legislative goal of deterring dilatory responses to claims (Brunner v Allstate Ins. Co., 79 AD2d 491, 494 [1981]). Indeed, if interest is a penalty provision and a key mechanism of the Legislature’s mandate “to establish a quick, sure and efficient system for obtaining compensation for economic loss suffered as a result of . . . accidents” (Walton v Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co., 88 NY2d 211, 214 [1996]), the imposition of a disparate application of the penalty depending on whether the applicant is an eligible injured person or a provider/assignee would contravene that goal.

The construction adopted by the court below creates the anomalous result that, rather than acting promptly to resolve a dispute, assignees only may decline to act on a claim upon which a mandatory punitive interest penalty is imposed (St. Clare’s Hosp. v Allstate Ins. Co., 215 AD2d 641 [1995]), for as long as the statute of limitations for breach of contract has yet to run (CPLR 213 [2]), and receive interest at a rate more than twice what is provided for ordinary breach of contract actions (CPLR 5004). The regulations do not permit eligible injured persons to delay arbitration or suit for such a purpose (11 NYCRR 65-3.9 [c]) and there is no rationale discernable in purposes of the No-Fault Law to support such a result.

The regulations, read as a whole in accordance with the rules of construction, the deference to be accorded the Superintendent’s assertion of intent, and the undesirable consequences of exempting assignees from the limitation imposed by 11 NYCRR 65-3.9 (c), lead to the conclusion that the reference to “applicant” in 11 NYCRR 65-3.9 (c) includes an eligible injured person’s assignee. Accordingly, the matter is remanded to the court below for a calculation of the statutory interest due in accordance with the decision herein.

Pesce, P.J., Golia and Belen, JJ., concur.

Footnotes

Footnote *: Although the claims herein predate the amendments to the no-fault regulations effective April 5, 2002, as the regulations at issue were not modified to any material extent, they are cited as presently promulgated.

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

APPELLATE TERM: 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS

Appeal from an order of the District Court of Nassau County, First District (Margaret C. Reilly, J.), entered July 14, 2005. The order, insofar as appealed from as limited by defendant’s brief, granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment.

Order, insofar as appealed from, affirmed without costs.

In this action to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment was granted. The sole issue raised on appeal is whether defendant proffered sufficient evidence to demonstrate that there was a triable issue of fact as to whether the automobile accident in which plaintiff’s assignor was allegedly injured was staged and, thus, not a covered event (see Central Gen. Hosp. v Chubb Group of Ins.
Cos., 90 NY2d 195 [1997]). In opposition to plaintiff’s motion, defendant submitted an affidavit by its claims representative wherein she stated that she has reviewed defendant’s file. The file reveals that defendant has investigated plaintiff’s claim and pursuant to such investigation defendant believed that the accident was an intentional loss because plaintiff’s assignor and the driver of the vehicle were involved in multiple accidents within a short period of time. Such affidavit was insufficient to demonstrate the existence of a triable issue of fact (see Ocean Diagnostic Imaging P.C. v Allstate Ins. Co., 6 Misc 3d 134[A], 2005 NY Slip Op 50189[U] [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists]; see also A.B. Med. Servs PLLC v Utica Mut. Ins. Co., 10 Misc 3d 50 [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2005]). Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment was properly granted.

Rudolph, P.J., McCabe and Lippman, JJ., concur. [*2]
Decision Date: January 2, 2007