Gullo & Associates, LLP (Cristina Carollo of counsel), for appellant. Gary Tsirelman, P.C. (David M. Gottlieb and Selina Chin of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal from a judgment of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Robin S. Garson, J.), entered May 31, 2018. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, awarded plaintiff the sum of $12,182.91.

ORDERED that the judgment is reversed, with $30 costs, and the matter is remitted to the Civil Court for a new trial limited to the issue of medical necessity.

Pursuant to an order entered February 17, 2017 in this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, the only issue for trial was whether the supplies at issue were medically necessary. At the nonjury trial, plaintiff’s attorney moved to preclude defendant’s expert witness on the ground that disclosure of the witness was untimely. The Civil Court granted plaintiff’s application to preclude the witness and, since defendant did not have any other witnesses, found for plaintiff. A judgment awarding plaintiff the sum of $12,182.91 was entered on May 31, 2018.

“CPLR 3101 (d) (1) (i) does not require a party to respond to a demand for expert witness information at any specific time nor does it mandate that a party be precluded from proffering expert testimony merely because of noncompliance with the statute, unless there is evidence of intentional or willful failure to disclose and a showing of prejudice by the opposing party” (Cutsogeorge v Hertz Corp., 264 AD2d 752, 753-754 [1999] [internal quotation marks omitted]). Plaintiff attempted to demonstrate prejudice before the Civil Court. However, since defendant’s witness was the doctor who had prepared the peer review reports upon which the denials of the claims were based, his name was listed as such in each of the denial of claim forms, and his report was attached to defendant’s motion for summary judgment, it is clear that plaintiff was not prejudiced (see id.). Thus, the Civil Court erred in precluding defendant’s expert from testifying (see Burbige v Siben & Ferber, 115 AD3d 632 [2014]; Market St. Surgical Ctr. v Global [*2]Liberty Ins. Co.,61 Misc 3d 155[A], 2018 NY Slip Op 51822[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2018]).

In view of the foregoing, this court need not reach defendant’s other argument.

Accordingly, the judgment is reversed and the matter is remitted to the Civil Court for a new trial limited to the issue of medical necessity.

ALIOTTA, P.J., ELLIOT and TOUSSAINT, JJ., concur.

The Rybak Firm, PLLC (Damin J. Toell and Karina Barska of counsel), for appellant. Law Offices of Buratti, Rothenberg & Burns (Bryan M. Rothenberg and Argyria A.N. Keltagias of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Richard J. Montelione, J.), entered June 29, 2018. The order granted defendant’s motion (1) to vacate an order of that court (Michael Gerstein, J.) entered November 29, 2017 granting plaintiff’s unopposed motion for the entry of a judgment based on defendant’s alleged failure to answer the complaint, (2) to, in effect, vacate the judgment entered March 1, 2018 pursuant to the November 29, 2017 order, and (3) upon such vacatur, to grant defendant summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

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

Plaintiff commenced this action on June 22, 2017 to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits for services provided to Ludmilla Dejean, who was injured in a motor vehicle accident on or about June 7, 2011. The record contains an answer by defendant 21st Century Insurance Company (21st Century), along with an affidavit signed on July 21, 2017, attesting to service of the answer upon plaintiff’s attorneys by mail on July 21, 2017. On November 20, 2017, plaintiff served a motion seeking the entry of a default judgment on the ground that plaintiff had not received an answer from defendant. By order entered November 29, 2017, the return date of plaintiff’s motion, the Civil Court (Michael Gerstein, J.) granted the motion, finding, among other things, that defendant had “failed to appear for and answer the calendar call on the return date of the motion [and] to submit any opposition.” A default judgment was entered on March 1, 2018, pursuant to the November 29, 2017 order, awarding plaintiff the principal sum of $527.54.

In April 2018, defendant moved to vacate the November 29, 2017 order and, in effect, the [*2]judgment entered pursuant thereto and, upon such vacatur, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that plaintiff’s action is precluded by an order of the Supreme Court, New York County, dated June 3, 2014, granting a motion by 21st Century for a default judgment against Freedom Chiropractic, P.C. and its assignor, Ludmilla Dejean, declaring, insofar as is relevant to the case at bar, that 21st Century is not obligated to reimburse Freedom Chiropractic, P.C. and its assignor for claims arising out of the June 7, 2011 accident, and that the applicable insurance policy is null and void with respect to that accident. Defendant also presented a judgment that was entered on July 21, 2017 in the Supreme Court, New York County, making the same declarations as were made in the June 3, 2014 order as to the parties’ rights. Plaintiff opposed defendant’s motion in the Civil Court. By order entered June 29, 2018, the Civil Court (Richard J. Montelione, J.) granted defendant’s motion and awarded defendant summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

As plaintiff acknowledges on appeal, defendant argued that defendant “did not receive at least 13 days’ notice [of plaintiff’s motion for leave to enter a default judgment], the minimum required for motions served by regular mail (see CPLR 2103 [b] [2]; 2214 [b]). Absence of proper service of a motion is a sufficient and complete excuse for a default on a motion, and deprives the court of jurisdiction to entertain the motion” (Financial Servs. Veh. Trust v Law Offs. of Dustin J. Dente, 86 AD3d 532, 532-533 [2011]; Bianco v LiGreci, 298 AD2d 482, 482 [2002]). As the Civil Court was deprived of jurisdiction, the November 29, 2017 order and the March 1, 2018 judgment entered pursuant thereto were nullities (see Financial Servs. Veh. Trust, 86 AD3d at 533).

In any event, defendant has demonstrated an excusable default and a meritorious defense to the action. By virtue of the Supreme Court’s declaratory judgment, there has been a conclusive determination of the merits of the claim in question (see Bayer v City of New York, 115 AD3d 897 [2014]; Panagiotou v Samaritan Vil., Inc., 88 AD3d 779 [2011]; Methal v City of New York, 50 AD3d 654 [2008]). In view of the foregoing, the Civil Court properly granted defendant’s motion, and we do not reach the parties’ remaining arguments.

Accordingly, the order is affirmed.

ALIOTTA, P.J., WESTON and SIEGAL, JJ., concur.

The Rybak Firm, PLLC (Damin J. Toell and Karina Barska of counsel), for appellant. Law Offices of Buratti, Rothenberg & Burns (Bryan M. Rothenberg and Argyria A.N. Kettagias of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Michael Gerstein, J.), entered December 11, 2018. 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 by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, plaintiff Wave Medical Services, P.C. (Wave) moved for summary judgment and defendant Farmers New Century Insurance Co. (Farmers) cross-moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. In support of its cross motion, Farmers submitted an order that had been entered in a Supreme Court declaratory judgment action which granted a motion brought by, among others, Farmers seeking a default judgment against, among others, Wave. The order found specifically that the plaintiffs therein, including Farmers, were entitled to a default judgment on liability against Wave, but did not declare the rights of the parties. The Civil Court denied Wave’s motion for summary judgment and granted Farmers’ cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint based upon the Supreme Court order. In response to Wave’s appeal, Farmers submits a judgment that was entered in the Supreme Court which declared, among other things, that Farmers has no duty to pay any no-fault [*2]benefits to Wave in any current or future proceeding because Wave is ineligible to collect no-fault benefits pursuant to 11 NYCRR 65-3.16 (a) (12).

A court “may in general take judicial notice of matters of public record” (Headley v New York City Tr. Auth., 100 AD3d 700, 701 [2012]; see Matter of Oak Tree Realty Co., LLC v Board of Assessors, 71 AD3d 1027 [2010]; Kingsbrook Jewish Med. Ctr. v Allstate Ins. Co., 61 AD3d 13 [2009]). In light of the Supreme Court’s declaration that Farmers has no obligation to pay no-fault benefits to Wave in any current proceeding, set forth in the Supreme Court judgment of which we take judicial notice, we find that the Civil Court properly denied Wave’s motion for summary judgment and granted Farmers’ cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint (see Healing Art Acupuncture, P.C. v 21st Century Ins. Co.,59 Misc 3d 139[A], 2018 NY Slip Op 50583[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2018]).

Accordingly, the order is affirmed.

ALIOTTA, P.J., WESTON and SIEGAL, JJ., concur.

Paul Kenny

Law Office of Jason Tenenbaum, P.C. (Jason Tenenbaum and Shaaker Bhuiyan of counsel), for appellant. Law Office of Melissa Betancourt, P.C. (Melissa Betancourt and David Steigbigel of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Harriet L. Thompson, J.), entered March 2, 2018. The order denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and granted plaintiff’s cross motion for summary judgment.

ORDERED that so much of the appeal as is from the portion of the order that denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is dismissed as academic in light of this court’s determination of the remainder of the appeal; and it is further,

ORDERED that the order, insofar as reviewed, is reversed, with $30 costs, plaintiff’s cross motion for summary judgment is denied, and summary judgment dismissing the complaint is awarded to defendant pursuant to CPLR 3212 (b), in accordance with the decision herein.

Plaintiff commenced this action to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits for supplies provided to its assignor, who had purportedly been injured in a motor vehicle accident on March 9, 2015. Thereafter, defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that plaintiff’s assignor had failed to appear for scheduled examinations under oath and independent [*2]medical examinations, and plaintiff cross-moved for summary judgment. By order entered March 2, 2018, the Civil Court denied defendant’s motion and granted plaintiff’s cross motion.

Defendant correctly argues that plaintiff’s cross motion for summary judgment should have been denied, as the proof submitted by plaintiff failed to establish that the claim at issue had not been timely denied (see Viviane Etienne Med. Care, P.C. v Country-Wide Ins. Co., 25 NY3d 498 [2015]), or that defendant had issued a timely denial of claim form that was 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 Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2011]). Thus, the portion of the order which granted plaintiff’s cross motion for summary judgment must be reversed and plaintiff’s cross motion denied.

Ordinarily, a reversal of this portion of the Civil Court’s order, standing alone, would result in the matter being remitted to the Civil Court for all further proceedings. However, on appeal, defendant argues that the complaint should be dismissed based upon a Supreme Court, Bronx County, declaratory judgment action against plaintiff and plaintiff’s assignor, among others, seeking a declaration that the defendants therein are not entitled to no-fault coverage for the March 9, 2015 accident. For the reasons stated in K.O. Med., P.C. v Mercury Cas. Co. (57 Misc 3d 155[A], 2017 NY Slip Op 51614[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2017]), in the interest of judicial economy, we take judicial notice of the judgment in that action which declares that plaintiff and its assignor “are not entitled to no-fault benefits as a result of a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 03/09/15” and that “any and all arbitrations or matters in a court of competent jurisdiction involving any of the Defendants as Assignee of Marie Vil . . . regarding a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 03/09/15, are permanently stayed and dismissed.” Upon taking such judicial notice, we award defendant summary judgment dismissing the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3212 (b) and dismiss as academic so much of the appeal as is from the portion of the Civil Court’s order that denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment (see id.; see also Maiga Prods. Corp. v Hertz Co., 61 Misc 3d 132[A], 2018 NY Slip Op 51448[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2018]).

WESTON, J.P., ALIOTTA and SIEGAL, JJ., concur.

Paul Kenny

Law Office of David O’Connor, PC (David O’Connor of counsel), for appellant. Law Office of Aloy O. Ibuzor (Theresa M. Carrubba and William Angstreich of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Tracy A. Catapano-Fox, J.), entered November 20, 2018. The order denied plaintiff’s motion for leave to renew, in effect, its opposition to the branch of defendant’s motion seeking to toll the accrual of no-fault statutory interest, which prior motion had been granted in an order of that court dated June 18, 2018 to the extent of tolling no-fault interest from August 9, 2002 to August 18, 2017 and, upon renewal, to deny that branch of defendant’s motion.

ORDERED that the order entered November 20, 2018 is affirmed, with $25 costs.

Plaintiff commenced this action in 2002 to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits for services allegedly rendered in 2001. Plaintiff served a notice of trial dated July 21, 2017. Defendant moved to strike the notice of trial and to dismiss the complaint or, in the alternative, to toll the accrual of no-fault statutory interest. By order dated June 18, 2018, the Civil Court granted the branch of defendant’s motion seeking to toll the accrual of no-fault interest to the extent of tolling the interest from August 9, 2002 to August 18, 2017, and denied the other branches of defendant’s motion. Plaintiff moved for leave to renew, in effect, its opposition to the branch of defendant’s motion seeking to toll the no-fault interest, arguing that there had been a change in the law. By order [*2]entered November 20, 2018, the Civil Court denied the motion.

Pursuant to CPLR 2221 (e) (2) and (3), a motion for leave to renew “(2) shall be based upon new facts not offered on the prior motion that would change the prior determination or shall demonstrate that there has been a change in the law that would change the prior determination and (3) shall contain reasonable justification for the failure to present such facts on the prior motion.” In the June 18, 2018 order, the court tolled the no-fault interest based upon a provision of the No-Fault Regulations which states that, once an action has been commenced, statutory interest accumulates “unless the applicant unreasonably delays the . . . court proceeding” (11 NYCRR 65.15 [h], now 11 NYCRR 65—3.9 [d]; see also Aminov v Country Wide Ins. Co., 43 Misc 3d 87 [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2014]). In Eagle Surgical Supply, Inc. v Country-Wide Ins. Co. (58 Misc 3d 154[A], 2018 NY Slip Op 50157[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2018]), this court declined to toll the interest because, in that case, it was not clear from the record that the plaintiff had caused the delay. Plaintiff’s motion for leave to renew was based upon the argument that Eagle Surgical Supply, Inc. represents a change in the law. Since that case merely applied the existing law to a new set of facts, it does not represent a change in the law, and plaintiff’s motion for leave to renew was properly denied.

Accordingly, the order is affirmed.

ALIOTTA, P.J., WESTON and SIEGAL, JJ., concur.

Paul Kenny

Decided on May 1, 2020

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

Decided on May 1, 2020

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

Law Office of David O’Connor, PC (David O’Connor of counsel), for appellant. Law Office of Aloy O. Ibuzor (Theresa M. Carrubba and William Angstreich of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Tracy A. Catapano-Fox, J.), entered June 20, 2018. The order, insofar as appealed from, granted the branch of defendant’s motion seeking to toll the accrual of no-fault statutory interest based upon plaintiff’s delay in the prosecution of the action to the extent of tolling that interest from March 24, 2003 to July 13, 2017.

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

Plaintiff commenced this action in 2002 to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits for services allegedly rendered in 2001. The record demonstrates that issue was joined in July 2002, that plaintiff served responses to defendant’s discovery demands on March 24, 2003, and that plaintiff filed a notice of trial dated July 13, 2017. Defendant moved to strike the notice of trial and to dismiss the complaint or, in the alternative, to toll the accrual of no-fault statutory interest. By order entered June 20, 2018, the Civil Court granted the branch of defendant’s motion seeking to toll the accrual of no-fault interest to the extent of tolling the interest from March 24, 2003 to July 13, 2017, and denied the other branches of defendant’s motion. Plaintiff appeals from so much of the order as tolled the no-fault interest.

Where a provider does not commence a no-fault action within 30 days of receipt of the insurer’s denial of claim form, the Insurance Department Regulations provide that statutory interest (see Insurance Law § 5106 [a]) does not begin to accumulate until an action is commenced (11 NYCRR 65-3.9 [c]). If an action has been commenced, statutory interest accumulates “unless the applicant unreasonably delays the . . . court proceeding” (11 NYCRR 65.15 [h] [now 11 NYCRR 65-3.9 (d)]). In this case, the Civil Court tolled the no-fault interest between the date plaintiff served responses to defendant’s discovery demands and the date plaintiff filed the notice of trial. Plaintiff’s argument on appeal, that it was defendant which had “unreasonably delay[ed]” the action by failing to serve responses to plaintiff’s discovery demands, is not supported by the record and, in any event, lacks merit (see Vitality Chiropractic, P.C. v Countrywide Ins., 59 Misc 3d 150[A], 2018 NY Slip Op 50838[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2018]; Kew Gardens Med & Rehab, P.C. v Country-Wide Ins. Co., 52 Misc 3d 143[A], 2016 NY Slip Op 51240[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2016]).

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

ALIOTTA, P.J., WESTON and SIEGAL, JJ., concur.

Paul Kenny

The Rybak Firm, PLLC (Damin J. Toell and Karina Barska of counsel), for appellant. Richard T. Lau & Associates (Anna Peereira of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Robin Kelly Sheares, J.), entered July 17, 2018. The order granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and denied plaintiff’s cross motion for summary judgment.

ORDERED that the order is modified by providing that defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is denied; as so modified, 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 Civil Court which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and denied plaintiff’s cross motion for summary judgment.

The motor vehicle accident in question occurred on September 4, 2013. Defendant’s motion was based on its alleged cancellation of the subject insurance policy on August 28, 2013. However, the papers defendant submitted in support of its motion failed to demonstrate, by admissible proof, that it had filed a copy of the notice of cancellation with the Department of Motor Vehicles within 30 days of the effective date of the cancellation as required by Vehicle and Traffic Law § 313 (2) (a) (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 313 [3]; Matter of Progressive Classic Ins. Co. v Kitchen, 46 AD3d 333 [2007]; Matter of Progressive Northeastern Ins. Co. v Barnes, 30 AD3d 523 [2006]; Advanced [*2]Med. Care, P.C. v Allstate Ins. Co., 50 Misc 3d 137[A], 2016 NY Slip Op 50130[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2016]; GL Acupuncture, P.C. v Geico Ins. Co., 48 Misc 3d 141[A], 2015 NY Slip Op 51239[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2015]). Thus, defendant has not demonstrated that the cancellation of the policy was effective with respect to plaintiff’s assignor, who was not the named insured or a member of the insured’s household (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 313 [3]). Consequently, defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint should have been denied.

Plaintiff’s cross-moving papers failed to establish either that defendant had failed to deny the claim within the requisite 30-day period or that defendant had issued a timely denial of claim that was conclusory, vague or without merit as a matter of law (see Insurance Law § 5106 [a]; 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 Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2011]). Consequently, the Civil Court properly denied plaintiff’s cross motion for summary judgment.

Accordingly, the order is modified by providing that defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is denied.

ALIOTTA, P.J., ELLIOT and TOUSSAINT, JJ., concur.

Paul Kenny

Plaintiff appeals from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County (Judy H. Kim. J.), entered April 18, 2019, which granted defendant’s motion to vacate so much of the judgment as awarded plaintiff attorneys’ fees pursuant to 11 NYCRR § 65-4.6(c).

Per Curiam.

Order (Judy H. Kim, J.), entered April 18, 2019, affirmed, with $10 costs.

Upon the trial of this action, the court determined that plaintiff-provider established its entitlement to no-fault benefits in the amount of $4,590.72 and that defendant-insurer failed to establish its independent medical examination (IME) no-show defense. This determination is not challenged on appeal. The issue before us is whether plaintiff, who is entitled to attorneys’ fees pursuant to the governing Insurance Department Regulations (see 11 NYCRR § 65-4.6), is entitled to said fees pursuant to the standard fee provision contained 11 NYCRR § 65-4.6(d), which limits attorneys’ fees to 20% of the amount recovered, subject to a then-maximum fee of $850 (now $1,360), or pursuant to the hourly rate fee provision contained in 11 NYCRR § 65-4.6(c). Civil Court held that the standard fee provision contained in section 65-4.6(d) applies in this case. We agree, and therefore affirm.

The hourly rate fee provision contained in 11 NYCRR § 65-4.6(c) governs disputes where “one of the issues involves a policy issue as enumerated on the prescribed denial of claim form(NYS form NF-10)” (emphasis added). However, the “policy issues” enumerated on the denial of claim form at bar are clearly limited to include only: (1) the policy was not in force on the date of the accident (box 3); (2) the injured person is excluded under policy conditions or exclusion (box 4); (3) the policy conditions were violated, which is limited to two categories involving late submission of a notice of claim (box 5); (4) the injured person is not an eligible injured person (box 6); (5) and the injuries did not arise out of use or operation of a motor vehicle (box 7).

The language of 11 NYCRR § 65-4.6(c) and the specifically enumerated policy issues on the denial of claim form are clear and unambiguous; patently they do not include the assignor’s [*2]failure to attend an IME. Therefore, plaintiff was not entitled to hourly attorneys’ fees pursuant to 11 NYCRR 65-4.6(c). Since the standard fee provision applies to “all other disputes” (11 NYCRR § 65-4.6[d]), it was properly applied in this case.

Plaintiff’s arguments to the contrary do not warrant a different result. While the failure to attend an IME “is a breach of a condition precedent to coverage under the no-fault policy” (Unitrin Advantage Ins. Co. v Bayshore Physical Therapy, PLLC, 82 AD3d 559, 560 [2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 705 [2011]), it is not a “policy issue as enumerated on the prescribed denial of claim form” (11 NYCRR § 65-4.6[c]). Nor is defendant’s characterization of its defense as a policy issue dispositive. Construing the regulation strictly, as we must since it is in derogation of the common law rule that parties to a controversy pay their own counsel fees (see McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 1, Statutes, § 301[a]; Matter of A.G. Ship Maintenance Corp. v Lezak, 69 NY2d 1, 5 [1986]), hourly attorneys’ fees are allowable where one of the specifically enumerated policy issues is involved, not whether one party designates a particular defense as a policy issue.

The opinion letters issued by Department of Financial Services (DFS) relied upon by plaintiff do not interpret the counsel fees regulation at issue. Nor did DFS explicitly state, in interpreting its own regulations, that the failure of the assignor to appear for an IME constitutes a “policy violation” so as to trigger additional attorneys’ fees under Insurance Department Regulations (11 NYCRR § 65-4.6[c]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.