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

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Carmen R. Velasquez, J.), entered September 22, 2010. The order, insofar as appealed from, granted the branches of plaintiff’s motion seeking summary judgment on the first and second causes of action, denied defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and found that “the only triable issues of fact remaining are whether the verifications are still outstanding and whether they are proper.” So much of the appeal as is from the portion of the order granting the branches of plaintiff’s motion seeking summary judgment on the first and second causes of action and denying the branches of defendant’s cross motion seeking summary judgment dismissing those causes of action is deemed to be from a judgment of the same court entered October 18, 2010 awarding plaintiff the principal sum of $1,285.56 (see CPLR 5501 [c]).

ORDERED that the judgment is reversed, without costs, so much of the order as granted the branches of plaintiff’s motion seeking summary judgment on the first and second causes of [*2]action is vacated, and the branches of plaintiff’s motion seeking summary judgment on the first and second causes of action are denied; and it is further,

ORDERED that the order, insofar as reviewed on direct appeal, is modified by providing that the only triable issue of fact remaining as to the third cause of action is whether verification is still outstanding; as so modified, the order, insofar as reviewed on direct appeal, is affirmed, without costs.

In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, the Civil Court granted the branches of plaintiff’s motion seeking summary judgment on the first and second causes of action, denied the branch of plaintiff’s motion seeking summary judgment on the third cause of action, denied defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint in its entirety, and found that “the only triable issues of fact remaining are whether the verifications are still outstanding and whether they are proper.” After plaintiff filed a notice of appeal, a judgment was entered awarding plaintiff the principal sum of $1,285.56 on its first and second causes of action. The appeal from so much of the order as granted the branches of plaintiff’s motion seeking summary judgment on the first and second causes of action and denied the branches of defendant’s cross motion seeking summary judgment dismissing those causes of action is deemed to be from the judgment (see CPLR 5501 [c]).

We find that the Civil Court improperly granted plaintiff summary judgment on the first and second causes of action. While the court accepted defendant’s allegation that the medical equipment at issue in this case was not delivered directly to plaintiff’s assignor, plaintiff submitted an affidavit which squarely contradicts that allegation. Since the key to summary judgment is issue finding, not issue determination (see Sillman v Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp., 3 NY2d 395 [1957]), neither party should have been granted summary judgment on the first and second causes of action. Accordingly, the judgment is reversed, so much of the order as granted the branches of plaintiff’s motion seeking summary judgment on the first and second causes of action is vacated, and the branches of plaintiff’s motion seeking summary judgment on the first and second causes of action are denied.

The Civil Court correctly denied the branch of defendant’s motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the third cause of action, as defendant proffered only conclusory allegations that plaintiff had submitted insufficient responses (see A.B. Med. Servs., PLLC v Country-Wide Ins. Co., 23 Misc 3d 140[A], 2009 NY Slip Op 51016[U] [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2009]). However, there is no basis in the record for the Civil Court’s finding of the existence of a triable issue of fact as to whether defendant’s verification requests were proper. Accordingly, the order, insofar as reviewed on direct appeal, is modified by providing that the only triable issue of fact remaining as to the third cause of action is whether verification is still outstanding.

Rios, J.P., Pesce and Aliotta, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: June 11, 2012

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

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Wavny Toussaint, J.), entered November 18, 2009. The order, insofar as appealed from as limited by the brief, denied defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

ORDERED that the order, insofar as appealed from, is reversed, without costs, and defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted.

In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, plaintiff moved for summary judgment and defendant cross-moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The Civil Court denied the motion and cross motion, and found that the sole issue for trial was the medical necessity of the services provided to plaintiff’s assignor. Defendant appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of the order as denied its cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

In support of its cross motion, defendant submitted, among other things, two affirmed peer review reports, each of which set forth the factual basis and medical rationale for the doctor’s determination that there was a lack of medical necessity for the services at issue. The [*2]affidavit by plaintiff’s health care practitioner submitted in response failed to meaningfully rebut the conclusions set forth in the peer review reports (see Innovative Chiropractic, P.C. v Mercury Ins. Co., 25 Misc 3d 137[A], 2009 NY Slip Op 52321[U] [App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2009]; Pan Chiropractic, P.C. v Mercury Ins. Co., 24 Misc 3d 136[A], 2009 NY Slip Op 51495[U] [App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2009]).

As plaintiff has not challenged the Civil Court’s finding, in effect, that defendant is otherwise entitled to judgment, defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted (see Delta Diagnostic Radiology, P.C. v Integon Natl. Ins. Co., 24 Misc 3d 136[A], 2009 NY Slip Op 51502[U] [App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2009]; Delta Diagnostic Radiology, P.C. v American Tr. Ins. Co., 18 Misc 3d 128[A], 2007 NY Slip Op 52455[U] [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2007]; A. Khodadadi Radiology, P.C. v NY Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 16 Misc 3d 131[A], 2007 NY Slip Op 51342[U] [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2007]).

Accordingly, the order, insofar as appealed from, is reversed, and defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted.

Rios, J.P., Pesce and Aliotta, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: June 11, 2012

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

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Carolyn E. Wade, J.), entered June 7, 2010. The order, insofar as appealed from as limited by the brief, implicitly denied defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

ORDERED that the order, insofar as appealed from, is reversed, without costs, and defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted.

In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, defendant cross-moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, arguing that plaintiff was not entitled to recover no-fault benefits because the insurance policy had been cancelled prior to the accident. By order entered June 7, 2010, insofar as appealed from as limited by the brief, the Civil Court implicitly denied the cross motion.

On a motion by a defendant insurance company for summary judgment based on a claim that the insurance policy had been cancelled, the initial burden is on the insurer to demonstrate a valid cancellation of the insurance policy. Once the insurance company makes a prima facie showing that it had timely and validly cancelled the policy in compliance with Vehicle and [*2]Traffic Law § 313, the burden shifts to the party claiming coverage to establish noncompliance with the statutory requirements as to form and procedure (see Matter of Auto One Ins. Co. v Forrester, 78 AD3d 1174 [2010]; GEICO Indem. v Roth, 56 AD3d 1244, 1245 [2008]; Matter of State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v Cherian, 202 AD2d 434, 435 [1994]). The papers submitted in support of defendant’s cross motion were sufficient to demonstrate, prima facie, that defendant had timely and validly cancelled the insurance policy in question (see Matter of Auto One Ins. Co. v Forrester, 78 AD3d at 1175; GEICO Indem. v Roth, 56 AD3d at 1245; Montefiore Med. Ctr. v Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 31 AD3d 724, 725 [2006]; Matter of State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v Cherian, 202 AD2d at 435), thereby shifting the burden to plaintiff. In opposition to the motion, plaintiff did not raise a triable issue of fact as to the validity of the cancellation (see Matter of Auto One Ins. Co. v Forrester, 78 AD3d at 1175; Tobias v Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 78 AD3d 928 [2010]).

Accordingly, the order, insofar as appealed from, is reversed and defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted.

Weston, J.P., Pesce and Rios, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: June 11, 2012

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

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Cheree A. Buggs, J.), entered September 14, 2010, deemed from a judgment of the same court entered September 21, 2010 (see CPLR 5501 [c]). The judgment, entered pursuant to the September 14, 2010 order granting plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and denying defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $1,310.94.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

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

The record establishes that, on December 2, 2008, defendant requested that plaintiff’s assignor appear for an examination under oath (EUO) on January 8, 2009. Plaintiff’s assignor failed to appear for the EUO. However, defendant did not mail a second request until February 12, 2009. As this follow-up request was untimely (see Insurance Department Regulations [11 NYCRR] § 65-3.6 [b]), defendant failed to toll the 30-day claim determination period (Insurance [*2]Department Regulations [11 NYCRR] § 65-3.8 [a] [1]), and, as a result, defendant’s denial of plaintiff’s claim was untimely. Consequently, the Civil Court properly denied defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment, which was based upon the defense that plaintiff’s assignor had failed to appear for an EUO. Inasmuch as defendant raises no issue on appeal with respect to plaintiff’s prima facie case, we do not pass upon the propriety of the Civil Court’s determination with respect thereto.

In light of the foregoing, we need not reach the parties’ remaining contentions.

Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.
Pesce, P.J., Weston and Aliotta, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: June 11, 2012

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

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Lisa S. Ottley, J.), entered April 27, 2010. The order, insofar as appealed from as limited by the brief, granted defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

ORDERED that the order, insofar as appealed from, is reversed, without costs, and defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is denied.

In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, plaintiff appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Civil Court as granted defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

The affidavit executed by defendant’s claims examiner was sufficient to establish that defendant’s NF-10 forms, which denied plaintiff’s claims on the ground of lack of medical necessity, had been timely mailed (see St. Vincent’s Hosp. of Richmond v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 50 AD3d 1123 [2008]; Delta Diagnostic Radiology, P.C. v Chubb Group of Ins., 17 Misc 3d 16 [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2007]). Plaintiff argues on appeal, as it did in the [*2]Civil Court, that the peer review reports defendant submitted in support of its cross motion for summary judgment were not in admissible form. We agree, as the peer review reports were affirmed by a psychologist, which is not permissible pursuant to CPLR 2106 (see Eagle Surgical Supply, Inc. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 34 Misc 3d 145[A], 2012 NY Slip Op 50151[U] [App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2012]; High Quality Med., P.C. v. Mercury Ins. Co., 29 Misc 3d 132[A], 2010 NY Slip Op 51900[U] [App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2010]). We note that, although one of the peer review reports contained a notary public’s stamp and signature, it did not include an attestation that the psychologist had appeared before the notary public and been duly sworn (see Eagle Surgical Supply, Inc., 34 Misc 3d 145[A], 2012 NY Slip Op 50151[U]; New Millennium Psychological Servs., P.C. v Unitrin Advantage Ins. Co., 32 Misc 3d 69 [App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2011]; cf. Furtow v Jenstro Enters., Inc., 75 AD3d 494 [2010]; Collins v AA Truck Renting Corp., 209 AD2d 363 [1994]). Consequently, this peer review report failed to meet the requirements of CPLR 2309 (b).

As defendant failed to make a prima facie showing of its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law sufficient to shift the burden to plaintiff (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320 [1986]), the order, insofar as appealed from, is reversed and defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment is denied.

Pesce, P.J., Weston and Aliotta, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: June 11, 2012

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

Appeal from a judgment of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Wavny Toussaint, J.), dated October 22, 2010. The judgment, entered upon a decision dated April 10, 2010, made after a nonjury trial, dismissed the complaint.

ORDERED that on the court’s own motion, the notice of appeal from the decision is deemed a premature notice of appeal from the judgment (see CPLR 5520 [c]); and it is further,

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

At a nonjury trial in this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, plaintiff’s owner testified that he had mailed the claim form in question by certified mail, return receipt requested. However, the certified mail receipt and domestic return receipt which he offered as proof of mailing lacked certain material information. Significantly, the certified mail receipt did not contain amounts for postage and fees, and did not have a clerk identification and date, and the return receipt was not signed by a recipient and did not indicate a date of delivery. Defendant’s witness testified that defendant had not received the claim form in question until after the commencement of the action, some three years after the purported mailing. [*2]

In a decision after trial, the Civil Court found that plaintiff had not established a prima facie case as it had not proved a timely mailing of the claim form in question. A judgment dismissing the complaint was subsequently entered. We deem the notice of appeal from the decision to be a premature notice of appeal from the judgment (see CPLR 5520 [c]).

The decision of a fact-finding court should not be disturbed upon appeal unless it is obvious that the court’s conclusions could not be reached under any fair interpretation of the evidence (see Claridge Gardens v Menotti, 160 AD2d 544 [1990]). The determination of a trier of fact as to issues of credibility is given substantial deference, as the trial court’s opportunity to observe and evaluate the testimony and demeanor of witnesses affords it a better perspective from which to assess their credibility (see Vizzari v State of New York, 184 AD2d 564 [1992]; Kincade v Kincade, 178 AD2d 510 [1991]).

In the present case, the record supports the determination of the Civil Court, based upon its assessment of the credibility of the witnesses and the proof adduced at trial, that plaintiff failed to satisfy its burden of proving that the claim form in question had been timely and properly mailed to defendant. Accordingly, as we find no basis to disturb the Civil Court’s findings, the judgment is affirmed.

Rios, J.P., Pesce and Aliotta, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: June 11, 2012

—[*1] Joseph Henig, P.C., Bellmore, N.Y., for appellant.

Lawrence R. Miles, Long Island City, N.Y., for respondent.

In an action to recover no-fault benefits under an insurance contract, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by its notice of appeal and brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Sher, J.), entered September 1, 2011, as denied its motion for summary judgment on the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, and the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on the complaint is granted.

The plaintiff made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting evidence that the prescribed statutory billing form had been mailed to and received by the defendant insurer, which failed to either pay or deny the claim within the requisite 30-day period (see Insurance Law § 5106 [a]; 11 NYCRR 65-3.8 [c]; NYU-Hosp. for Joint Diseases v American Intl. Group, Inc., 89 AD3d 702, 703 [2011]; Mount Sinai Hosp. v Country Wide Ins. Co., 85 AD3d 1136, 1137 [2011]; Westchester Med. Ctr. v Lincoln Gen. Ins. Co., 60 AD3d 1045, 1045-1046 [2009]).

In opposition to the plaintiff’s motion, the defendant failed to raise a triable issue of fact. A presumption of receipt was created by the certified mail receipt and the signed return receipt card, such that the defendant’s mere denial of receipt was insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see New York & Presbyt. Hosp. v Countrywide Ins. Co., 44 AD3d 729, 730-731 [2007]; Westchester Med. Ctr. v Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 40 AD3d 981, 982-983 [2007]). Further, the defendant’s failure to respond to the no-fault billing within the requisite 30-day period precluded it from raising the defenses that it was not provided with timely notice of the underlying motor vehicle accident or proof of claim (see Bayside Rehab & Physical Therapy, P.C. v GEICO Ins. Co., 24 Misc 3d 542, 545 [2009]; Rockman v Clarendon Natl. Ins. Co., 21 Misc 3d 1118[A], 2008 NY Slip Op 52093[U] [Civ Ct, Richmond County 2008]; Vincent Med. Servs., P.C. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 21 Misc 3d 142[A], 2008 NY Slip Op 52442[U] [App Term, 2d Dept 2008]). Finally, although the defense of lack of coverage is not precluded by the defendant’s failure to pay or deny the subject no-fault claim within the requisite 30-day period (see Hospital for Joint Diseases v Travelers Prop. Cas. Ins. Co., 9 NY3d [*2]312, 318 [2007]; Central Gen. Hosp. v Chubb Group of Ins. Cos., 90 NY2d 195, 199 [1997]), here, the defendant’s submissions were insufficient to raise triable issues of fact with respect to a lack of coverage defense (see Mercury Cas. Co. v Encare, Inc., 90 AD3d 475 [2011]; D.S. Chiropractic, P.C. v Country-Wide Ins. Co., 24 Misc 3d 138[A], 2009 NY Slip Op 51584[U] [App Term, 2d Dept 2009]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on the complaint. Rivera, J.P., Belen, Sgroi and Miller, JJ., concur. [Prior Case History: 2011 NY Slip Op 32398(U).]

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

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Margaret A. Pui Yee Chan, J.), entered June 15, 2010, deemed from a judgment of the same court entered November 3, 2010 (see CPLR 5501 [c]). The judgment, entered pursuant to the June 15, 2010 order denying plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and granting defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment, dismissed the complaint.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, plaintiff appeals from an order denying its motion for summary judgment and granting defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The Civil Court found that defendant had established that it had timely denied the claims in question on the ground that the supplies at issue were not medically necessary, and that plaintiff had failed to rebut defendant’s evidence. A judgment was subsequently entered, from which the appeal is deemed to have been taken (see CPLR 5501 [c]).

Contrary to plaintiff’s argument on appeal, defendant was not required to annex to its motion papers copies of the medical records which had been reviewed by defendant’s peer [*2]reviewer (see Elmont Open MRI & Diagnostic Radiology, P.C. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 30 Misc 3d 126[A], 2010 NY Slip Op 52222[U] [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2010]; Urban Radiology, P.C. v Tri-State Consumer Ins. Co., 27 Misc 3d 140[A], 2010 NY Slip Op 50987[U] [App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2010]). Furthermore, while plaintiff argues that the peer review report contained an electronic stamped facsimile of the peer reviewer’s signature and, as a result, the report was inadmissible, the record indicates that the facsimile signature was permissibly placed on the report by the chiropractor who had performed the peer review (see Quality Health Prods. v Geico Gen. Ins. Co., 34 Misc 3d 129[A], 2011 NY Slip Op 52299[U] [App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2011]; Eden Med., P.C. v Eveready Ins. Co., 26 Misc 3d 140[A], 2010 NY Slip Op 50265[U] [App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2010]).

As plaintiff’s remaining contentions on appeal are similarly without merit, the judgment is affirmed.

Pesce, P.J., Rios and Aliotta, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: May 15, 2012

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

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Carolyn E. Wade, J.), entered January 14, 2010. The order granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and denied plaintiff’s cross motion for summary judgment.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs.

In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Civil Court which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and denied plaintiff’s cross motion for summary judgment.The affidavit by an employee of Independent Physical Exam Referrals, the entity which had scheduled the independent medical examinations (IMEs) involved herein on behalf of defendant, established that the IME scheduling letters had been timely mailed (see St. Vincent’s Hosp. of Richmond v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 50 AD3d 1123 [2008]; Delta Diagnostic Radiology, P.C. v Chubb Group of Ins., 17 Misc 3d 16 [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2007]). In addition, the affidavits executed by defendant’s claims examiner and claims support services supervisor demonstrated that the denial of claim forms, which denied the claims based upon the [*2]failure of plaintiff’s assignor to appear for the IMEs, had been timely mailed (see St. Vincent’s Hosp. of Richmond, 50 AD3d 1123; Delta Diagnostic Radiology, P.C., 17 Misc 3d 16). Defendant also submitted affirmations from its examining physician, chiropractor and acupuncturist, all of whom stated that plaintiff’s assignor had failed to appear for the scheduled IMEs. As a result, defendant established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see Stephen Fogel Psychological, P.C. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 35 AD3d 720 [2006]). Inasmuch as plaintiff submitted only an affirmation in opposition from its counsel, which failed to raise a triable issue of fact, the Civil Court properly granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Accordingly, the order is affirmed.

Weston, J.P., Pesce and Rios, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: May 15, 2012

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

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Peter Paul Sweeney, J.), entered October 1, 2009. The order, insofar as appealed from as limited by the brief, granted the branches of defendant’s motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the third and sixth causes of action.

ORDERED that the order, insofar as appealed from, is affirmed, without costs.

In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, plaintiff appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Civil Court as
granted the branches of defendant’s motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the third and sixth causes of action.

The affidavit of defendant’s claims examiner established that defendant had timely mailed (see St. Vincent’s Hosp. of Richmond v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 50 AD3d 1123 [2008]; Delta Diagnostic Radiology, P.C. v Chubb Group of Ins., 17 Misc 3d 16 [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2007]) its requests and follow-up requests for verification to plaintiff and that plaintiff [*2]had failed to provide the requested verification.

In opposition to defendant’s motion for summary judgment, plaintiff did not demonstrate that it had provided defendant, prior to the commencement of the action, with the requested verification. Consequently, the 30-day period within which defendant was required to pay or deny the claims did not begin to run, and plaintiff’s causes of action upon these claims are premature (see Insurance Department Regulations [11 NYCRR] § 65-3.8 [a]; Hospital for Joint Diseases v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 44 AD3d 903 [2007]; Central Suffolk Hosp. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 24 AD3d 492 [2005]). Thus, the Civil Court properly granted the branches of defendant’s motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the third and sixth causes of action.

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

Weston, J.P., Pesce and Rios, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: May 15, 2012