[*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]

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.

[*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]

Fourth Department, November 16, 2018

Nationwide Affinity Ins. Co. of Am. v Jamaica Wellness Med., P.C., 2017 NY Slip Op 32943(U), reversed.

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

Kopelevich & Feldsherova, P.C., Brooklyn (Mikhail Kopelevich of counsel), for defendant-appellant.

Hollander Legal Group, P.C., Melville (Allan Hollander of counsel), and Harris J. Zakarin, P.C., for plaintiffs-respondents.

In this appeal, we must determine whether an insurer in a no-fault benefits case may be precluded from asserting a defense premised upon the failure of the insured or that person’s assignee to appear at an examination under oath (EUO) where the insurer has not timely denied coverage. We hold that such a defense is subject to preclusion.

I.

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 (hereinafter, Nationwide) seeking reimbursement pursuant to the No-Fault Law and regulations (see Insurance Law art 51; 11 NYCRR part{**167 AD3d at 194} 65). As part of an investigation of the validity of the claims, Nationwide sought additional information and requested that defendant submit to EUOs. Despite Nationwide’s repeated requests, defendant failed to appear at any of the scheduled EUOs.

Thereafter, Nationwide commenced this declaratory judgment action alleging that, by failing to appear for properly scheduled and noticed EUOs, defendant “breached a material condition precedent to coverage” under the insurance policies and no-fault regulations. Nationwide moved for summary judgment declaring that, as a result of such breach, it was under no obligation to pay or reimburse any of the subject claims, and defendant cross-moved for, inter [*2]alia, summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Supreme Court subsequently granted the motion, and denied the cross motion. The court declared, among other things, that defendant breached a condition precedent to coverage by failing to appear at the scheduled EUOs and determined that Nationwide therefore had the right to deny all claims retroactively to the date of loss, regardless of whether it had issued timely denials.

As limited by its brief on appeal, defendant contends that the court erred in granting the motion because, in pertinent part, an insurer is precluded from asserting a litigation defense premised upon nonappearance at an EUO in the absence of a timely denial of coverage and that Nationwide failed to meet its burden of establishing that it issued timely denials. We agree with defendant for the reasons that follow.

II.

“The Comprehensive Motor Vehicle Insurance Reparations Act, commonly referred to as the ‘No-Fault Law’ (see Insurance Law art 51) is aimed at ensuring ‘prompt compensation for losses incurred by accident victims without regard to fault or negligence, to reduce the burden on the courts and to provide substantial premium savings to New York motorists’ ” (Viviane Etienne Med. Care, P.C. v Country-Wide Ins. Co., 25 NY3d 498, 504-505 [2015]).

As relevant here, “[w]here an insurer fails to pay or deny a [no-fault] claim within the requisite 30 days under the statute and{**167 AD3d at 195} regulations following its receipt of the proof of claim, the insurer is subject to substantial consequences, namely, preclusion from asserting a defense against payment of the claim” (id. at 506 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Fair Price Med. Supply Corp. v Travelers Indem. Co., 10 NY3d 556, 562-563 [2008]; Hospital for Joint Diseases v Travelers Prop. Cas. Ins. Co., 9 NY3d 312, 317-318 [2007]; Presbyterian Hosp. in City of N.Y. v Maryland Cas. Co., 90 NY2d 274, 282 [1997], rearg denied 90 NY2d 937 [1997]). Although the preclusion remedy “may require an insurer to pay a no-fault claim it might not have had to honor if it had timely denied the claim,” the Court of Appeals has “emphasized that the great convenience of ‘prompt uncontested, first-party insurance benefits’ is ‘part of the price paid to eliminate common-law contested lawsuits’ ” (Viviane Etienne Med. Care, P.C., 25 NY3d at 506; see Fair Price Med. Supply Corp., 10 NY3d at 565; Presbyterian Hosp. in City of N.Y., 90 NY2d at 285).

The sole exception to the preclusion remedy “arises where an insurer raises lack of coverage as a defense” (Viviane Etienne Med. Care, P.C., 25 NY3d at 506).

“In such cases, an insurer who fails to issue a timely disclaimer is not prohibited from later raising th[at] defense because ‘the insurance policy does not contemplate coverage in the first instance, and requiring payment of a claim upon failure to timely disclaim would create coverage where it never existed’ ” (Hospital for Joint Diseases, 9 NY3d at 318).

The Court of Appeals has characterized the no-coverage exception to the preclusion remedy as an “exceptional exemption” of “narrow[ ] . . . sweep” (Central Gen. Hosp. v Chubb Group of Ins. Cos., 90 NY2d 195, 199 [1997]; see Fair Price Med. Supply Corp., 10 NY3d at 563-564; Hospital for Joint Diseases, 9 NY3d at 318). In determining whether a specific defense is subject to the preclusion remedy or falls under the no-coverage exception, a court must answer the following question: “Is the defense more like a ‘normal’ exception from coverage (e.g., a policy exclusion), or a lack of coverage in the first instance (i.e., a defense ‘implicat[ing] a coverage matter’)?” (Fair Price Med. Supply Corp., 10 NY3d at 565).

III.

The specific defense at issue here, based on nonappearance at EUOs, originates from the mandatory personal injury{**167 AD3d at 196} protection endorsement included as part of all automobile insurance policies (see 11 NYCRR 65-1.1 [b] [1]), which provides that “[n]o action shall lie against the [insurer] unless, as a condition precedent thereto, there shall have been full compliance with the terms of this coverage” (11 NYCRR 65-1.1 [d]). Those terms include providing written notice of the accident to the insurer, as well as written proof of claim for health service expenses (see id.). With respect to proof of claim, the endorsement states that, upon request by the insurer, the insured or that person’s assignee must, among other things, submit to EUOs as may be reasonably required (see id.; see also 11 NYCRR 65-3.5 [e]).

We conclude that a defense premised upon nonappearance at an EUO is “more like a ‘normal’ exception from coverage (e.g., a policy exclusion)” than one involving “a lack of coverage in the first instance (i.e., a defense ‘implicat[ing] a coverage matter’)” (Fair Price Med. Supply Corp., 10 NY3d at 565; see also Hospital for Joint Diseases, 9 NY3d at 319-320; Presbyterian Hosp. in City of N.Y., 90 NY2d at 281-286; see generally Central Gen. Hosp., 90 NY2d at 199). Unlike defenses where preclusion thereof would result in coverage where it never existed, such as those premised upon the lack of a contract with the person claiming coverage or for the vehicle involved in the accident, the termination of the contract prior to the accident, or the cause of the purported injuries being something other than a vehicular accident (see Hospital for Joint Diseases, 9 NY3d at 319; Central Gen. Hosp., 90 NY2d at 200; Zappone v Home Ins. Co., 55 NY2d 131, 136-138 [1982]), the EUO nonappearance defense allows the insurer to avoid liability for the payment of no-fault benefits where the insured or assignee has breached a condition in an existing policy providing coverage (see IDS Prop. Cas. Ins. Co. v Stracar Med. Servs., P.C., 116 AD3d 1005, 1007 [2d Dept 2014]). In other words, “ ’coverage legitimately . . . exist[s]’ ” where there is a valid, unexpired policy under which a covered person seeks recovery following “an actual accident” involving a covered vehicle that results in the person sustaining “actual injuries” (Fair Price Med. Supply Corp., 10 NY3d at 565). In that event, the insured or assignee must meet certain obligations to the insurer to receive payment, including submitting to reasonably requested EUOs, and the insurer must meet certain obligations to the insured or assignee, including making timely payment of benefits that are supported by the requisite proof (see Insurance Law § 5106 [a]; 11 NYCRR 65-1.1 [d]). Thus, coverage under the policy exists in{**167 AD3d at 197} the first instance, but the failure of the insured or assignee to comply with the provision requiring submission to reasonably requested EUOs allows the insurer to deny payment of a claim based on such a material breach of the policy and thus relieves the insurer of liability for the payment of policy proceeds (see 11 NYCRR 65-1.1 [d]; Interboro Ins. Co. v Clennon, 113 AD3d 596, 597 [2d Dept 2014]; Westchester Med. Ctr. v Lincoln Gen. Ins. Co., 60 AD3d 1045, 1046-1047 [2d Dept 2009], lv denied 13 NY3d 714 [2009]).

Nationwide nonetheless contends that the court properly relied upon First Department precedent holding that the failure to appear at a duly requested EUO constitutes “a breach of a condition precedent to coverage under the no-fault policy, and therefore fits squarely within the [no-coverage] exception to the preclusion [remedy]” (Unitrin Advantage Ins. Co. v Bayshore Physical Therapy, PLLC, 82 AD3d 559, 560 [1st Dept 2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 705 [2011] [emphasis added]; see Mapfre Ins. Co. of N.Y. v Manoo, 140 AD3d 468, 470 [1st Dept 2016]; Hertz Corp. v Active Care Med. Supply Corp., 124 AD3d 411, 411 [1st Dept 2015]; Allstate Ins. Co. v Pierre, 123 AD3d 618, 618 [1st Dept 2014]). We disagree.

“Most conditions precedent describe acts or events which must occur before a party is obliged to perform a promise made pursuant to an existing contract, [which is] a situation to be distinguished conceptually from a condition precedent to the formation or existence of the contract itself . . . In the latter situation, no contract arises ‘unless and until the condition occurs’ ” (Oppenheimer & Co. v Oppenheim, Appel, Dixon & Co., 86 NY2d 685, 690 [1995]).

Contrary to the determination of the First Department, we conclude that the requirement that an insured or assignee submit to an EUO is not a condition precedent to the existence of coverage itself; rather, submission to a reasonably requested EUO represents an event that “must occur before [the insurer] is obliged to perform a promise made pursuant to an existing [policy],” i.e., rendering payment of benefits (id.; see 11 NYCRR 65-1.1 [d]). In sum, the failure to appear at a reasonably requested EUO constitutes a breach of an existing policy condition, which is distinguishable from lack of coverage in the first instance (see generally Fair Price Med. Supply Corp., 10 NY3d at 565; Central Gen. Hosp., 90 NY2d at 199).{**167 AD3d at 198}

We further agree with defendant that, contrary to the court’s determination and Nationwide’s contention, our holding in Interboro Ins. Co. v Tahir (129 AD3d 1687 [4th Dept 2015]) is not controlling. The no-coverage exception to the preclusion remedy was not at issue and the insurer disclaimed coverage in that case; thus, it is factually distinguishable and legally unpersuasive inasmuch as the broad language regarding vitiation of the contract for failure to comply with a condition precedent was not central to the holding and did not account for the conceptual differences between types of conditions precedent (see id. at 1688).

IV.

We agree with defendant that, inasmuch as the defense based on nonappearance at an [*4]EUO is subject to the preclusion remedy, Nationwide was required to establish that it issued timely denials on that ground, and that Nationwide failed to meet its initial burden on the motion. The assertions in the affidavit of Nationwide’s claims specialist that Nationwide issued timely denial forms to defendant for nonappearance at the EUOs are conclusory and unsupported by any such denial forms; therefore, Nationwide did not establish as a matter of law that it issued timely and proper denials. Inasmuch as Nationwide “failed to establish [its] prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the issue of [its] timely and proper denial of coverage, summary judgment should have been denied regardless of the sufficiency of . . . defendant’s opposition” (Progressive Cas. Ins. Co. v Infinite Ortho Prods., Inc., 127 AD3d 1050, 1052 [2d Dept 2015]).

V.

Accordingly, we conclude that the judgment insofar as appealed from should be reversed, the motion should be denied, and the declarations should be vacated.

Centra, J.P., Carni, Curran and Winslow, JJ., concur.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment insofar as appealed from is unanimously reversed on the law without costs, the motion is denied, and the declarations are vacated.

[*1]

Mura & Storm, PLLC, Buffalo (Roy A. Mura of counsel), for petitioners-appellants.

Nixon Peabody LLP, Buffalo (Sheldon K. Smith of counsel), for respondent-respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County (John F. O’Donnell, J.), entered April 20, 2017, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75. The order denied the petition.

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

Memorandum: Petitioners issued a number of personal automobile insurance policies that included a Mandatory Personal Injury Protection Endorsement. Respondent, a company that supplies durable medical equipment including a Multi-Mode Stimulator Kit (Kit), supplied the Kit to various patients insured by petitioners. After the patients assigned to respondent their rights under the policies, respondent sought reimbursement from petitioners on behalf of those patients. Petitioners sought information by an informational demand in the form of verification requests, as provided under the 120-day rule (see 11 NYCRR 65-3.8 [b] [3]), including respondent’s acquisition costs and other pricing information for the Kit. Respondent refused to provide that information within the 120 days as required under the rule, maintaining that disclosure thereof would expose trade secrets or proprietary information. In addition, respondent took the position that, when the supplier of the equipment is also the manufacturer of the equipment, the reimbursement is “the usual and customary price charged to the general public” and thus the information requested by petitioners was not necessary for reimbursement. Thereafter, petitioners denied respondent’s claims and, at respondent’s request, the parties proceeded to mandatory arbitration. The arbitrator issued 14 identical awards denying each of respondent’s claims. Respondent appealed the arbitrator’s awards to the master arbitrator, who vacated the arbitrator’s awards and remitted the matters for new hearings.

Petitioners filed the instant CPLR article 75 proceeding seeking to vacate the master arbitration awards, alleging that the master arbitrator, among other things, exceeded his authority. Supreme Court disagreed, and denied the petition. We affirm.

The “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 Allstate Ins. Co. v Keegan, 201 AD2d 724, 725 [2d Dept 1994]). Here, we agree with the court that the master arbitrator properly exercised his authority and limited his review of the arbitrator’s awards to assessing whether the awards were incorrect as a matter of law (see Matter of Smith [Firemen’s Ins. Co.], 55 NY2d 224, 231 [1982]; Petrofsky, 54 NY2d at 210-211). In his awards, the master arbitrator found that the arbitrator had misapplied the 120-day rule, reasoning that, pursuant to that rule, a claimant who responds within the requisite 120-day period with a “reasonable justification” is permitted to have that objection decided by the arbitrator and, if overruled by the arbitrator, is to be afforded the opportunity to produce the requested information and allow the insurer to base its decision on such information (11 NYCRR 65-3.8 [b] [3]). Contrary to petitioners’ contention, the master arbitrator did not impermissibly perform a de novo review of the evidence. Rather, the master arbitrator vacated the arbitrator’s awards based on “an alleged error of a rule of substantive law” (Matter of Acuhealth Acupuncture, P.C. v Country-Wide Ins. Co., 149 AD3d 828, 829 [2d Dept 2017] [internal quotation marks omitted]). Thus, we conclude that the court’s decision to uphold the master arbitrator’s awards in this case was rational (cf. id.). Present—Whalen, P.J., Peradotto, Lindley, Curran and Troutman, JJ.

[*1]

Bruno, Gerbino & Soriano, LLP, Melville (Nathan M. Shapiro of counsel), for defendant-appellant.

Cherundolo Law Firm, PLLC, Syracuse (John C. Cherundolo of counsel), for plaintiff-respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Onondaga County (Deborah H. Karalunas, J.), dated February 15, 2017. The order, among other things, denied the motion of defendant Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corporation seeking, in effect, a declaration that plaintiff is not entitled to no-fault insurance benefits from it.

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

Memorandum: Plaintiff commenced this action seeking, inter alia, a declaration that Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corporation (defendant) is required to provide him with no-fault insurance benefits. Defendant now appeals from an order that, inter alia, denied its motion for summary judgment seeking, in effect, a declaration that plaintiff is not entitled to such benefits from defendant (see e.g. Leo v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 136 AD3d 1333, 1333 [4th Dept 2016], lv denied 28 NY3d 902 [2016]; Ward v County of Allegany, 34 AD3d 1288, 1289 [4th Dept 2006]). We affirm.

Contrary to defendant’s contention, it failed to meet its burden on the motion of establishing as a matter of law that plaintiff was not entitled to no-fault insurance benefits. Insofar as relevant here, the Insurance Law provides that no-fault benefits are to be given “to a qualified person for basic economic loss arising out of the use or operation . . . of an uninsured motor vehicle” (Insurance Law § 5221 [b] [1]) and, in pertinent part, the statute defines a qualified person as “a resident of this state, other than an insured or the owner of an uninsured motor vehicle” (§ 5202 [b] [i]). Vehicle and Traffic Law § 128 defines an owner as, inter alia, “[a] person . . . having the property in or title to a vehicle or vessel.” We have previously stated that, “[g]enerally, ‘ownership is in the registered owner of the vehicle or one holding the documents of title[,] but a party may rebut the inference that arises from these circumstances’ ” (Martin v Lancer Ins. Co., 133 AD3d 1219, 1220 [4th Dept 2015]).

Here, in support of its motion, defendant submitted plaintiff’s testimony that he was the co-owner of the vehicle, and that he and his fiancée paid for the vehicle, its maintenance, and a Florida insurance policy that did not cover plaintiff. Nevertheless, defendant also submitted the registration, title, and insurance documents for the vehicle, all of which list plaintiff’s father as the owner. Consequently, Supreme Court properly determined that, inasmuch as “there is conflicting evidence of ownership, the issue must be resolved by a trier of fact” (id.). Because defendant did not meet its initial burden on the motion for summary judgment, “the burden never shifted to [plaintiff], and denial of the motion was required ‘regardless of the sufficiency of the opposing papers’ ” (Scruton v Acro-Fab Ltd., 144 AD3d 1502, 1503 [4th Dept 2016], quoting Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]; see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853 [1985]). Present—Smith, J.P., Carni, Curran and Winslow, JJ.

[*1]

Barth Sullivan Behr, Buffalo (Laurence D. Behr of counsel), for defendant-appellant.

Andrews, Bernstein, Maranto & Nicotra, PLLC, Buffalo (Richard Nicotra of counsel), for plaintiff-respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Diane Y. Devlin, J.), entered November 17, 2014. The order denied the motion of defendant for summary judgment.

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

Memorandum: Plaintiff commenced this breach of contract action seeking no fault benefits under an insurance policy issued by defendant to D & M Collision, Inc. (D & M), a car dealership that allegedly owned the vehicle in which plaintiff was injured when it was struck from behind by another vehicle. Defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, contending that the vehicle in question was not owned by D & M, its insured, at the time of the accident and thus is not covered by the policy. We conclude that Supreme Court properly denied the motion inasmuch as there is an issue of fact whether D & M owned the vehicle.

Plaintiff had a business relationship with D & M’s owner whereby plaintiff would use D & M’s dealer credentials to purchase used vehicles at auction. On June 14, 2012, plaintiff, using D & M’s credentials, purchased a 2001 Chrysler 300 at auction for $600. Although plaintiff used his own money to purchase the vehicle, the Retail Certificate of Sale form (form MV-50) issued in conjunction with the sale identifies D & M as the buyer. Approximately two months later, in mid-August 2012, plaintiff agreed to sell the vehicle to Edward Hardy. The title to the vehicle could not be transferred to Hardy, however, until the vehicle passed inspection, and the vehicle could not pass inspection until its computer codes had been cleared. According to plaintiff, the vehicle had to be driven a certain distance in order for the codes to be cleared.

On August 31, 2012, the vehicle was involved in an accident while Hardy was driving and plaintiff was a passenger. At that time, title to the vehicle still had not been transferred to Hardy because the codes had not yet been cleared, and the vehicle therefore had not yet passed inspection. In the accident, plaintiff sustained injuries for which he received medical treatment, and he thereafter sought payment of his medical expenses by defendant under the policy it issued to D & M. Defendant refused to provide coverage on the ground that its policy did not cover the vehicle because the vehicle was not owned by D & M, and plaintiff thereafter commenced this action.

The no-fault coverage defendant provided to D & M covered all vehicles “owned” by D & M. Vehicle and Traffic Law § 128 defines an “owner” as “[a] person, other than a lien holder, having the property in or title to a vehicle.” Generally, “ownership is in the registered owner of the vehicle or one holding the documents of title[,] but a party may rebut the inference that arises from these circumstances” (Fulater v Palmer’s Granite Garage, 90 AD2d 685, 685 [1982], appeal dismissed 58 NY2d 826 [1983]; see also Zegarowicz v Ripatti, 77 AD3d 650, 653 [2010]). Where there is conflicting evidence of ownership, the issue must be resolved by a trier of fact (see Sosnowski v Kolovas, 127 AD2d 756, 758 [1987]; Fulater, 90 AD2d at 685). Moreover, we note that there may be more than one owner of a vehicle and, to the extent that there is more than one owner here, they may be jointly and severally liable to plaintiff (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 388 [1], [3]; Hassan v Montuori, 99 NY2d 348, 353 [2003]).

Here, the evidence submitted by defendant in support of its motion failed to eliminate all issues of fact whether D & M owned the subject vehicle at the time of the accident. Notably, the vehicle was purchased with D & M’s dealer credentials and, at the time of the accident, D & M had title to the vehicle, and its dealer plates were on the vehicle. Although defendant presented additional evidence seeking to rebut the presumption of D & M’s ownership arising from those circumstances, the court properly concluded that it failed to do so (see generally Aronov v Bruins Transp., 294 AD2d 523, 524 [2002]; Sosnowski, 127 AD2d at 758).

Defendant’s remaining contentions are raised for the first time on appeal and thus are not properly before us (see Ciesinski v Town of Aurora, 202 AD2d 984, 985 [1994]). Present—Scudder, P.J., Centra, Peradotto, Lindley and Valentino, JJ.