[*1]

Hurwitz & Fine, P.C., Buffalo (Steven E. Peiper of counsel), for respondent-appellant.

Gelber & O’Connell, LLC, Amherst (Timothy G. O’Connell of counsel), for petitioner-respondent.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Catherine R. Nugent Panepinto, J.), entered February 1, 2019. The judgment awarded petitioner money damages upon an arbitration award.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: This case arose from a motor vehicle accident that occurred when petitioner’s vehicle was struck by a vehicle that failed to stop for a red light. Following petitioner’s recovery of damages in an underlying action against the driver of the other vehicle, petitioner submitted a supplemental uninsured/underinsured motorist (SUM) coverage claim to respondent, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (State Farm). The matter proceeded to compulsory arbitration, and the arbitrator awarded petitioner $2,250,000, less the setoff amount of $474,771.21, for a total of $1,775,228.79. Supreme Court granted petitioner’s motion to confirm the arbitration award and denied State Farm’s cross motion to vacate the award. In appeal No. 1, State Farm appeals from a judgment that, inter alia, confirmed the arbitration award. In appeal No. 2, State Farm appeals from an order that, inter alia, granted petitioner’s motion to confirm the arbitration award and denied State Farm’s cross motion to vacate the award. In appeal No. 3, State Farm appeals from an order denying its application, pursuant to CPLR 2601 and 5519 (c), for an order permitting payment of the judgment into court.

Preliminarily, inasmuch as the order appealed from in appeal No. 2 was subsumed in the judgment appealed from in appeal No. 1, appeal No. 2 must be dismissed (see Hughes v Nussbaumer, Clarke & Velzy, 140 AD2d 988, 988 [4th Dept 1988]; see also Matter of Toussie v Coastal Dev., LLC, 161 AD3d 533, 533 [1st Dept 2018]; Deragon v Burkart, 55 AD3d 1309, 1309 [4th Dept 2008]). Furthermore, inasmuch as State Farm does not challenge any aspect of the order appealed from in appeal No. 3, we dismiss that appeal as abandoned (see Abasciano v Dandrea, 83 AD3d 1542, 1545 [4th Dept 2011]).

We reject State Farm’s contention in appeal No. 1 that the arbitration award is arbitrary and capricious, irrational and unsupported by the evidence. “It is well settled that judicial review of arbitration awards is extremely limited” (Wien & Malkin LLP v Helmsley-Spear, Inc., 6 NY3d 471, 479 [2006], cert dismissed 548 US 940 [2006]; see Whitney v Perrotti, 164 AD3d 1601, 1602 [4th Dept 2018]). As relevant here, a court may vacate an arbitration award if it finds that the rights of a party were prejudiced when “an arbitrator . . . exceeded his [or her] power” (CPLR 7511 [b] [1] [iii]). An arbitrator exceeds his or her power where, inter alia, the award is “irrational” (Matter of New York City Tr. Auth. v Transport Workers’ Union of Am., Local 100, AFL-CIO, 6 NY3d 332, 336 [2005]). “An award is irrational if there is no proof whatever to justify the award” (Matter of Town of Scriba [Teamsters Local 317], 129 AD3d 1596, 1597 [4th Dept 2015] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Matter of Professional, Clerical, Tech., Empls. Assn. [Board of Educ. for Buffalo City Sch. Dist.], 103 AD3d 1120, 1122 [4th Dept 2013], lv denied 21 NY3d 863 [2013]). If the arbitrator “offers even a barely colorable justification for the outcome reached, the arbitration award must be upheld” (Whitney, 164 AD3d at 1602 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Matter of Town of Tonawanda [Town of Tonawanda Salaried Workers Assn.], 160 AD3d 1477, 1477 [4th Dept 2018], lv denied 32 NY3d 908 [2018]).

Where, as here, the parties are “subject to compulsory arbitration, the award must satisfy an additional layer of judicial scrutiny—it ‘must have evidentiary support and cannot be arbitrary and capricious’ ” (City School Dist. of the City of N.Y. v McGraham, 17 NY3d 917, 919 [2011], quoting Matter of Motor Veh. Acc. Indem. Corp. v Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 89 NY2d 214, 223 [1996]). “ ’When reviewing compulsory arbitrations . . . , the court should accept the arbitrators’ credibility determinations, even where there is conflicting evidence and room for choice exists’ ” (Matter of Powell v Board of Educ. of Westbury Union Free School Dist., 91 AD3d 955, 955 [2d Dept 2012]).

Here, the record establishes that the findings of the arbitrator were rational, had evidentiary support, and were not arbitrary and capricious (see Motor Veh. Acc. Indem. Corp., 89 NY2d at 223-224; Matter of Bender [Lancaster Cent. Sch. Dist.], 175 AD3d 993, 996 [4th Dept 2019]). The arbitrator’s decision reflects his review of the parties’ submissions, the oral arguments of counsel, and the testimony of petitioner, and the arbitrator’s evaluation of the testimony and analyzation of the medical, no-fault, and property damage records. The arbitrator noted that State Farm had conceded that petitioner had no prior relevant medical history but required an extensive three-level spinal surgery at a very young age, and the arbitrator determined that the diagnosis of petitioner’s spinal surgeon that petitioner’s injuries were caused by the accident was supported by the opinions of the radiologists and other treating physicians. The arbitrator further determined that the diagnosis and opinions of petitioner’s spinal surgeon and chiropractor were supported by the objective evidence, whereas the opinions of the neurosurgeon who conducted the independent medical examination of petitioner were at odds with the opinions of the radiologists and petitioner’s surgeon regarding the severity and progression of petitioner’s injuries. We thus conclude that there is evidentiary support for the arbitrator’s conclusion that petitioner is entitled to collect the SUM benefits from State Farm.

We have considered the remaining contentions of State Farm and conclude that none warrants modification or reversal of the judgment. Present—Centra, J.P., Troutman, Winslow and Bannister, JJ.

[*1]

Hollander Legal Group, P.C., Melville (Allan S. Hollander of counsel), for plaintiffs-appellants.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Onondaga County (Donald A. Greenwood, J.), entered April 24, 2019. The order denied plaintiffs’ motions for leave to renew their motions seeking summary judgment.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously reversed on the law without costs, the motions for leave to renew are granted and, upon renewal, the motions for summary judgment are granted, and judgment is granted in favor of plaintiffs as follows:

It is adjudged and declared that plaintiffs are under no obligation to pay or reimburse any of the subject claims.

Memorandum: Defendants are medical professional corporations that were assigned claims for no-fault benefits by individuals who purportedly received treatment for injuries allegedly sustained in motor vehicle accidents. Defendants submitted bills for the services they purportedly rendered, along with the assignment of benefit forms, to the insurance carrier plaintiffs (Nationwide plaintiffs) seeking reimbursement pursuant to the No-Fault Law and regulations (see Insurance Law art 51; 11 NYCRR part 65). The Nationwide plaintiffs commenced these declaratory judgment actions after defendants failed to appear at requested examinations under oath (EUOs), alleging that each defendant had breached a material condition precedent necessary to coverage. The Nationwide plaintiffs then moved in both actions for summary judgment declaring that, as a result of such breach, they were under no obligation to pay or reimburse any of the subject claims. Supreme Court denied the motions without prejudice to renew upon completion of discovery. After the Nationwide plaintiffs moved for leave to renew those motions and defendants filed opposition thereto, we issued a decision on an appeal in a related case in which we held that a defense based on nonappearance at an EUO is subject to the preclusion remedy and that, therefore, the Nationwide plaintiffs were required to establish that they issued timely denials on that ground (Nationwide Affinity Ins. Co. of Am. v Jamaica Wellness Med., P.C., 167 AD3d 192, 198 [4th Dept 2018] [Jamaica Wellness]). The Nationwide plaintiffs were thus limited to raising that decision in their reply papers, and the court denied the motions. Thereafter, the Nationwide plaintiffs moved for leave to renew the motions pursuant to CPLR 2221 (e) in light of our intervening decision in Jamaica Wellness and submitted, inter alia, a detailed affidavit of a claims specialist, the subject denial of claim forms, and affidavits of the operations manager of their third-party claims processor. The court denied the motions for leave to renew, and the Nationwide plaintiffs now appeal.

We agree with the Nationwide plaintiffs that the court abused its discretion in denying the motions for leave to renew. A motion for leave to renew “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” (CPLR 2221 [e] [2]). “Although a court has discretion to ‘grant renewal, in the interest of justice, upon facts which were known to the movant at the time the original motion was made’ . . . , it may not exercise that discretion unless the movant establishes a ‘reasonable justification for the failure to present such facts on the prior motion’ ” (Robinson v Consolidated Rail Corp., 8 AD3d 1080, 1080 [4th Dept 2004]; see CPLR 2221 [e] [3]). Here, to establish their entitlement to summary judgment by making the requisite showing with respect to their defense to payment of the subject claims based upon defendants’ nonappearance at the EUOs, the Nationwide plaintiffs submitted facts that were known to them but not offered on the prior motions for summary judgment (see CPLR 2221 [e] [2]). The Nationwide plaintiffs also established a reasonable justification for failing to present such facts on the prior motions inasmuch as this Court, in our intervening decision in Jamaica Wellness, held for the first time and in contrast to established precedent in another department that the defense based on nonappearance at an EUO is subject to the preclusion remedy and, therefore, that an insurance carrier seeking a declaration that it is not obligated to pay claims due to such nonappearance must establish, inter alia, that it issued timely and proper denials (167 AD3d at 197-198; see generally Foxworth v Jenkins, 60 AD3d 1306, 1307 [4th Dept 2009]).

We further agree with the Nationwide plaintiffs that they are entitled to summary judgment. Upon our review of the record, we conclude that the Nationwide plaintiffs met their burden as movants and that defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Nationwide Affinity Ins. Co. of Am. v Beacon Acupuncture, P.C., 175 AD3d 1836, 1837 [4th Dept 2019]). Present—halen, P.J., Peradotto, Troutman and Bannister, JJ.

[*1]

Hollander Legal Group, P.C., Melville (Allan S. Hollander of counsel), for plaintiffs-appellants.

Kopelevich & Feldsherova, P.C., Brooklyn (David Landfair of counsel), for defendant-respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Onondaga County (Donald A. Greenwood, J.), entered March 29, 2019. The order denied plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment and granted in part defendant’s cross motion to compel discovery.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously reversed on the law without costs, the motion is granted, the cross motion is dismissed, and judgment is granted in favor of plaintiffs as follows:

It is adjudged and declared that plaintiffs are under no obligation to pay or reimburse any of the subject claims.

Memorandum: As we explained in a prior appeal (Nationwide Affinity Ins. Co. of Am. v Jamaica Wellness Med., P.C., 167 AD3d 192 [4th Dept 2018]), defendant is a medical professional corporation that was assigned claims for no-fault benefits by individuals who purportedly received treatment for injuries allegedly sustained in motor vehicle accidents. Defendant submitted bills for the services it purportedly rendered, along with the assignment of benefit forms, to the insurance carrier plaintiffs (Nationwide plaintiffs) seeking reimbursement pursuant to the No-Fault Law and regulations (see Insurance Law art 51; 11 NYCRR part 65). The Nationwide plaintiffs commenced this declaratory judgment action after defendant failed to appear at repeatedly requested examinations under oath (EUOs), alleging that defendant had breached a material condition precedent necessary to coverage. The Nationwide plaintiffs then moved for summary judgment declaring that, as a result of such breach, they were under no obligation to pay or reimburse any of the subject claims. Supreme Court granted the motion, declared, among other things, that defendant breached a condition precedent to coverage by failing to appear at the scheduled EUOs, and determined that the Nationwide plaintiffs therefore had the right to deny all claims retroactively to the date of loss, regardless of whether they had issued timely denials.

We reversed the judgment insofar as appealed from, denied the Nationwide plaintiffs’ motion, and vacated the declarations. We held that a defense based on nonappearance at an EUO is subject to the preclusion remedy and that, therefore, the Nationwide plaintiffs were required to establish that they issued timely denials on that ground. We determined that the Nationwide plaintiffs failed to establish their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the issue of their timely and proper denial of coverage inasmuch as the assertions in the affidavit of their claims specialist that they issued timely denial forms to defendant for nonappearance at the EUOs were conclusory and unsupported by any such denial forms (Nationwide Affinity Ins. Co. of Am., 167 AD3d at 198).

The Nationwide plaintiffs subsequently filed a second motion for summary judgment on the complaint and submitted, inter alia, a detailed affidavit of the claims specialist, the subject denial of claim forms, and affidavits of the operations manager of their third-party claims processor. Defendant cross-moved pursuant to CPLR 3124 to compel discovery. Supreme Court denied the motion on the ground that it was an improper successive motion for summary judgment and granted in part the cross motion. The Nationwide plaintiffs now appeal.

We agree with the Nationwide plaintiffs that the court erred in refusing to entertain their second summary judgment motion. “Although successive summary judgment motions generally are disfavored absent newly discovered evidence or other sufficient cause . . . , neither Supreme Court nor this Court is precluded from addressing the merits of such a motion” (Giardina v Lippes, 77 AD3d 1290, 1291 [4th Dept 2010], lv denied 16 NY3d 702 [2011]; see Putrelo Constr. Co. v Town of Marcy, 137 AD3d 1591, 1593 [4th Dept 2016]). Here, our intervening decision in the prior appeal, which clarified that the defense based on nonappearance at an EUO is subject to the preclusion remedy and that the Nationwide plaintiffs were therefore required to establish that they issued timely denials on that ground, constitutes sufficient cause to entertain the motion (see Pludeman v Northern Leasing Sys., Inc., 106 AD3d 612, 616 [1st Dept 2013]).

We further agree with the Nationwide plaintiffs that they are entitled to summary judgment. Contrary to defendant’s contentions, we conclude upon our review of the record that the Nationwide plaintiffs met their burden as movant and that defendant failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Nationwide Affinity Ins. Co. of Am. v Beacon Acupuncture, P.C., 175 AD3d 1836, 1837 [4th Dept 2019]). In addition, defendant’s “ ’mere hope or speculation’ that further discovery will lead to evidence sufficient to defeat [the Nationwide plaintiffs’] motion is insufficient to warrant denial thereof” (Kaufmann’s Carousel, Inc. v Carousel Ctr. Co. LP, 87 AD3d 1343, 1345 [4th Dept 2011], lv dismissed 18 NY3d 975 [2012], rearg denied 19 NY3d 938 [2012]; see Austin v CDGA Natl. Bank Trust & Canandaigua Natl. Corp., 114 AD3d 1298, 1301 [4th Dept 2014]; see generally CPLR 3212 [f]). In light of our determination, defendant’s cross motion to compel discovery is dismissed as moot (see Clark C.B. v Fuller, 59 AD3d 1030, 1031 [4th Dept 2009]). We therefore reverse the order by granting the motion, dismissing the cross motion, and granting judgment in favor of the Nationwide plaintiffs declaring that they are under no obligation to pay or reimburse any of the subject claims. Present—Whalen, P.J., Peradotto, Troutman and Bannister, JJ.

[*1]

Law Office of Peter C. Merani, P.C., New York City (Karen McCloskey of counsel), for respondent-appellant.

The Wright Law Firm, LLC, Rochester (Ron F. Wright of counsel), for petitioner-respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Monroe County (Ann Marie Taddeo, J.), entered November 27, 2018, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75. The order, inter alia, granted the petition to vacate the award of the master arbitrator.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: This case arises from injuries that Troy Hodge sustained when a motor vehicle struck him while he rode a bicycle. Petitioner thereafter performed surgery on Hodge, who assigned his no-fault insurance claims to petitioner. Respondent, Hodge’s no-fault insurance carrier, denied petitioner’s claims for the cost of the surgery on the ground that the surgery was not medically necessary. Petitioner subsequently submitted the matter for arbitration. An initial arbitrator rendered an award in favor of petitioner, but respondent sought review from a master arbitrator, who vacated the award of the initial arbitrator and issued an award in favor of respondent. In this CPLR article 75 proceeding to review the determination of the master arbitrator, respondent appeals from an order that granted the petition, vacated the award of the master arbitrator, confirmed the award of the initial arbitrator, and denied the cross petition to confirm the master arbitrator’s award. We affirm.

It is well settled that “[t]he ‘role of the master arbitrator is to review the determination of the arbitrator to assure that the arbitrator reached his [or her] decision in a rational manner, that the decision was not arbitrary and capricious . . . , incorrect as a matter of law . . . , in excess of the policy limits . . . or in conflict with other designated no-fault arbitration proceedings’ (Matter of Petrofsky [Allstate Ins. Co.], 54 NY2d 207, 212 [1981]). This power ‘does not include the power to review, de novo, the matter originally presented to the arbitrator’ ” (Matter of Progressive Cas. Ins. Co. [Elite Med. Supply of N.Y., LLC], 162 AD3d 1471, 1472 [4th Dept 2018]). Here, we agree with petitioner that the master arbitrator impermissibly performed a de novo review of the medical evidence, and thus clearly exceeded his powers. The initial arbitrator concluded that respondent failed to meet its burden of submitting a peer review report setting forth a medical rationale for denying the claim, inasmuch as the peer review report submitted by respondent was conclusory, failed to set forth appropriate medical standards and failed to address the specifics of the case. Contrary to respondent’s contention, the master arbitrator did not conclude that the arbitrator’s determination was incorrect as a matter of law. To the contrary, the master arbitrator reviewed the evidence de novo and concluded that the peer review report submitted by respondent “appears rational.” Thus, contrary to respondent’s contention, Supreme Court properly determined that the master arbitrator exceeded his authority (see generally Matter of Allstate Ins. Co. v Keegan, 201 AD2d 724, 725 [2d Dept 1994]). Present—Whalen, P.J., Smith, DeJoseph, Curran and Winslow, JJ.

[*1]

Hurwitz & Fine, P.C., Buffalo (Jerry Marti of counsel), for defendant-appellant.

The Morris Law Firm, P.C., Buffalo (Daniel K. Morris of counsel), for plaintiff-respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Catherine R. Nugent Panepinto, J.), entered November 1, 2017. The order denied defendant’s motion to dismiss the amended complaint.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously reversed on the law without costs, the motion is granted, and the amended complaint is dismissed.

Memorandum: Plaintiff, as the assignee of claims for no-fault benefits of individuals who had received health care services from plaintiff for injuries sustained in motor vehicle accidents, commenced this action against defendant, the issuer of the assignors’ no-fault policies. In its amended complaint, plaintiff alleged, inter alia, that defendant violated the no-fault regulations by requesting verifications and examinations under oath and delaying the payment of claims for treatment rendered by plaintiff to the assignors. Although the no-fault claims were adjudicated and paid by defendant after arbitration, plaintiff sought further damages from defendant for the manner in which those claims were processed. Prior to serving its answer, defendant moved to dismiss the amended complaint on, inter alia, the ground that it failed to state a cause of action upon which relief could be granted (see CPLR 3211 [a] [7]). Supreme Court denied the motion, and we reverse.

On a CPLR 3211 (a) (7) motion to dismiss, “[w]e accept the facts as alleged in the complaint as true, accord plaintiff[ ] the benefit of every possible favorable inference, and determine only whether the facts as alleged fit within any cognizable legal theory” (Leon v Martinez, 84 NY2d 83, 87-88 [1994]; see Hall v McDonald’s Corp., 159 AD3d 1591, 1592 [4th Dept 2018]). “The allegations in a complaint, however, ‘cannot be vague and conclusory . . . , and [b]are legal conclusions will not suffice’ ” (Choromanskis v Chestnut Homeowners Assn., Inc., 147 AD3d 1477, 1478 [4th Dept 2017]; see Simkin v Blank, 19 NY3d 46, 52 [2012]).

We agree with defendant that the court erred in denying the motion with respect to the breach of contract cause of action. The amended complaint alleged that defendant and plaintiff “were parties to the applicable insurance contracts by way of the [a]ssignments of [b]enefits” and that “[t]he underlying verification requests, examinations under oath, and subsequent non-payment of bills by . . . [d]efendant represent a breach of contract.” The amended complaint, however, failed to identify the specific insurance contracts that plaintiff had performed services under or the contract provisions that defendant allegedly breached. Inasmuch as bare legal conclusions without factual support are insufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss, we conclude that the amended complaint fails to state a cause of action for breach of contract. Additionally, we note that plaintiff conceded in its respondent’s brief that “[d]efendant[ ] did not fail to perform their obligations under the contract[s]” and that “the contracts have specific remedies available to plaintiff . . . , and all such remedies have already been applied” (see generally Non-Instruction Adm’rs & Supervisors Retirees Assn. v School Dist. of City of Niagara Falls, 118 AD3d 1280, 1283 [4th Dept 2014]).

With respect to the cause of action for negligent hiring, supervision, or retention, the amended complaint alleged that defendant’s employees delayed the payment of plaintiff’s claims and sent plaintiff requests for verification and examinations under oath, that defendant was aware of its employees’ propensity to commit those acts, and that defendant nevertheless continued to employ them. Although “[a]n employer may be liable for a claim of negligent hiring or supervision if an employee commits an independent act of negligence outside the scope of employment and the employer was aware of, or reasonably should have foreseen, the employee’s propensity to commit such an act” (Lamb v Stephen M. Baker, O.D., P.C., 152 AD3d 1230, 1231 [4th Dept 2017] [internal quotation marks omitted]), the amended complaint failed to allege that the acts of defendant’s employees were committed independent of defendant’s instruction or outside the scope of employment (see id.). The amended complaint also failed to allege how the employees’ purported acts of sending requests for verification and examinations under oath constituted acts of negligence. We therefore conclude that the court erred in denying defendant’s motion with respect to the cause of action for negligent hiring, supervision, or retention.

We also agree with defendant that the amended complaint failed to allege facts sufficient to state a cause of action for prima facie tort (see generally Freihofer v Hearst Corp., 65 NY2d 135, 142-143 [1985]). “There can be no recovery [for prima facie tort] unless a disinterested malevolence to injure [a] plaintiff constitutes the sole motivation for [the] defendant[‘s] otherwise lawful act” (Backus v Planned Parenthood of Finger Lakes, 161 AD2d 1116, 1117 [4th Dept 1990] [internal quotation marks omitted]). Here, the amended complaint alleged that defendant acted in “bad faith” and intentionally caused harm to plaintiff by requesting verifications and examinations under oath. Those conclusory allegations, however, failed to state that defendant had “ ’a malicious [motive] unmixed with any other and exclusively directed to [the] injury and damage of [plaintiff]’ ” (Burns Jackson Miller Summit & Spitzer v Lindner, 59 NY2d 314, 333 [1983]). Furthermore, it is “[a] critical element of [a prima facie tort] cause of action . . . that plaintiff suffered specific and measurable loss” (Freihofer, 65 NY2d at 143; see Lincoln First Bank of Rochester v Siegel, 60 AD2d 270, 279-280 [4th Dept 1977]). Here, the injuries alleged in the amended complaint, i.e., delayed payment of claims resulting in a “reduced cash flow,” are “couched in broad and conclusory terms” (Lincoln First Bank of Rochester, 60 AD2d at 280), and do not constitute “specific and measurable loss” (Freihofer, 65 NY2d at 143; cf. S. E. Nichols, Inc. v Grossman [appeal No. 1], 50 AD2d 1086, 1086 [4th Dept 1975]). Thus, the court erred in denying the motion with respect to the prima facie tort cause of action.

Finally, as conceded by plaintiff’s counsel at oral argument of this appeal before this Court, defendant is entitled to dismissal of the remaining causes of action asserted in the amended complaint. Present—Peradotto, J.P., Lindley, DeJoseph, Troutman and Winslow, JJ.

[*1]

Brown Chiari LLP, Buffalo (Timothy M. Hudson of counsel), for plaintiff-appellant.

Rupp Baase Pfalzgraf Cunningham LLC, Buffalo (Matthew A. Lenhard of counsel), for defendant-respondent.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Niagara County (Frank Caruso, J.), entered October 22, 2018. The judgment dismissed the complaint and awarded defendant costs and disbursements.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Plaintiff commenced this action seeking supplementary uninsured/underinsured motorist (SUM) benefits from defendant, her motor vehicle liability insurer, based on injuries that plaintiff allegedly sustained in a motor vehicle accident. The jury returned a verdict finding that the accident was not “a substantial factor in causing an injury to [plaintiff].” Thereafter, Supreme Court denied plaintiff’s motion to set aside the verdict as against the weight of the evidence. Plaintiff appeals from a judgment entered after the jury’s verdict, and we affirm.

We reject plaintiff’s initial contention that the court erred in precluding her from calling as witnesses at trial any claims representatives employed by defendant or from entering into evidence any proof of insurance. It was undisputed at trial that plaintiff carried SUM coverage pursuant to a policy issued by defendant and that the SUM coverage was applicable to plaintiff’s motor vehicle accident, and thus there was no need for plaintiff to offer further evidence establishing the existence of the policy. Similarly, there is no indication in plaintiff’s pleadings or elsewhere in the record that she was alleging that defendant denied her claim for SUM benefits in bad faith (see e.g. Bi-Economy Mkt., Inc. v Harleysville Ins. Co. of N.Y., 10 NY3d 187, 191-192 [2008]), and thus evidence that defendant conducted an internal investigation regarding plaintiff’s claim was not relevant to the issues at trial. Indeed, it is understandable that defendant engaged in such an investigation inasmuch as, “[w]hen an insured injures someone in a motor vehicle accident, the injured party is subject to the serious injury requirement in the No-Fault Law and cannot sue for noneconomic loss unless the serious injury threshold is met (see Insurance Law § 5104 [a]). Since the purpose of supplementary coverage is to extend to the insured the same level of coverage provided to an injured third party under the policy, the insured must also meet the serious injury requirement before entitlement to supplementary benefits. If this were not the case, the insured would receive coverage more comprehensive than that available to a third party injured by the insured” (Raffellini v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 9 NY3d 196, 205 [2007]). Here, we agree with defendant that its representatives were not witnesses to the accident, have no personal knowledge of the facts of the accident, and are not medical doctors qualified to testify regarding plaintiff’s alleged injuries. Thus, defendant’s internal investigation and evaluation of plaintiff’s claim is therefore irrelevant to the issue whether plaintiff sustained a serious injury, which, along with the issue whether any such injury was causally related to the accident, were the primary issues before the jury (see generally 40 Rector Holdings, LLC v Travelers Indem. Co., 40 AD3d 482, 483 [1st Dept 2007]). We also agree with defendant that plaintiff did not need a representative from defendant to explain the relationship between the parties. Plaintiff’s counsel could have requested a special instruction from the court or elicited detailed testimony from the plaintiff on that topic. Moreover, plaintiff’s counsel did explain to the jury in his opening and closing statements the relationship between the parties.

Contrary to plaintiff’s contention, the court properly rejected her request to charge the jury pursuant to PJI 2:282 regarding the aggravation of a preexisting injury inasmuch as “ ’there was no factual basis for such a charge’ ” (Dennis v Massey, 134 AD3d 1532, 1533-1534 [4th Dept 2015]; cf. Mazurek v Home Depot U.S.A., 303 AD2d 960, 961 [4th Dept 2003]). We thus reject plaintiff’s contention that a “rational jury could have found that [plaintiff] had asymptomatic pre-existing arthritis that was activated and precipitated by the injury” and that a charge pursuant to PJI 2:282 was therefore warranted. We note, however, that plaintiff’s contention supports a charge under PJI 2:283 regarding increased susceptibility to injury, and that charge was given in this case (see Martin v Volvo Cars of N. Am., 241 AD2d 941, 943 [4th Dept 1997]).

We also reject plaintiff’s contention that the court erred in failing to set aside the verdict as against the weight of the evidence. It is well established that “[a] verdict rendered in favor of a defendant may be successfully challenged as against the weight of the evidence only when the evidence so preponderated in favor of the plaintiff that it could not have been reached on any fair interpretation of the evidence” (Sauter v Calabretta, 103 AD3d 1220, 1220 [4th Dept 2013] [internal quotation marks omitted]). “That determination is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court, but if the verdict is one that reasonable persons could have rendered after receiving conflicting evidence, the court should not substitute its judgment for that of the jury” (Ruddock v Happell, 307 AD2d 719, 720 [4th Dept 2003]; see Todd v PLSIII, LLC-We Care, 87 AD3d 1376, 1377 [4th Dept 2011]). “Where a verdict can be reconciled with a reasonable view of the evidence, the successful party is entitled to the presumption that the jury adopted that view” (Schreiber v University of Rochester Med. Ctr., 88 AD3d 1262, 1263 [4th Dept 2011] [internal quotation marks omitted]). Here, there was sharply conflicting expert testimony with respect to whether plaintiff sustained an injury as a result of the accident, and the jury was entitled to credit the testimony of defendant’s expert and reject the testimony of plaintiff’s experts (see McMillian v Burden, 136 AD3d 1342, 1344 [4th Dept 2016]).

While we conclude under the circumstances of this case that the verdict is not against the weight of the evidence, we nonetheless note that the first question on the verdict sheet—i.e., “[w]as the accident . . . a substantial factor in causing an injury to [plaintiff]?”—invites the very problem we addressed in Brown v Ng (163 AD3d 1464, 1465 [4th Dept 2018]), where we noted that an interrogatory asking whether the plaintiff sustained an “injury” fails to address the appropriate legal issue, which is whether the plaintiff sustained a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d). The first question on the verdict sheet was unnecessary here inasmuch as the second and third questions asked the jury to determine whether plaintiff sustained a serious injury under the relevant categories that was causally related to the accident.

Finally, we reject plaintiff’s contention that the court erred in denying her motion for a directed verdict on the issue of liability. Contrary to plaintiff’s contention, defendant was not required to issue a disclaimer regarding the serious injury threshold (see generally Insurance Law § 3420 [f] [1], [2]; Raffellini, 9 NY3d at 205; Meegan v Progressive Ins. Co., 43 AD3d 182, 184-185 [4th Dept 2007]). Present—Peradotto, J.P., DeJoseph, NeMoyer and Curran, JJ.