[*1]

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Department, June 3, 2010

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

Rubin, Fiorella & Friedman LLP, New York City (Joseph Federici and Harlan R. Schreiber of counsel), for appellant. Lewin, Goodman, Baglio, LLP, Melville (James E. Coughlin of counsel), for respondent.

{**28 Misc 3d at 56} OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

Ordered that the appeal from the decision is dismissed; and it is further, ordered that the judgment is reversed without costs and the matter is remitted to the Civil Court where the parties may stipulate to a more definite statement of facts or proceed to trial on the disputed issue in accordance with the decision herein.

After issue was joined in this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, the parties submitted an agreed statement of facts to the court for a determination (see Bhutta Realty Corp. v Sangetti, 165 AD2d 852, 853 [1990] [invoking CPLR 3222]; Coccio v Parisi, 151 AD2d 817 [1989] [same]). The sole legal issue presented by the submission was whether it was ascertainable, within one year of the subject accident, “that further expenses may be incurred as a result of the injury” (Insurance Law § 5102 [a] [1]). The Civil Court concluded that, because plaintiff’s assignor had submitted an application for no-fault benefits within two months of the subject accident, the injuries that would possibly require treatment were ascertainable, with minimal investigation or a simple inquiry, within a year of the date of the accident. A judgment was entered in plaintiff’s favor.

Insurance Law § 5102 (a) (1) provides for the payment of necessary medical and other expenses “all without limitation as to time, provided that within one year after the date of the accident causing the injury it is ascertainable that further expenses may be incurred as a result of the injury.” The no-fault regulations state that “an insurer shall not be liable for the payment of medical and other benefits enumerated in section 5102(a)(1) if, during a period of one year from the date of the accident, no such expenses have been incurred by the applicant”{**28 Misc 3d at 57} (Insurance Department Regulations [11 NYCRR] § 65-3.16 [a] [3]). No-fault expenses are incurred at the time treatment is received (see Todaro v GEICO Gen. Ins. Co., 46 AD3d 1086, 1088 [2007]).

While the parties stipulated that plaintiff’s assignor had been involved in an accident on [*2]December 12, 2005, that plaintiff’s assignor had submitted an application for no-fault benefits on February 1, 2006, that plaintiff had provided services between January 3, 2007 and May 14, 2007, that plaintiff had established its prima facie case, and that defendant had not received any no-fault claims on plaintiff’s assignor’s behalf until January 18, 2007, the stipulation is silent as to whether plaintiff’s assignor had received any relevant treatment from any provider, and therefore incurred any relevant expenses, within the one-year period following the accident. “It is well established that a stipulation of facts pursuant to CPLR 3222 must cover all points in dispute” (Bhutta Realty Corp., 165 AD2d at 853; see also CPLR 3222 [b] [5]; Coccio, 151 AD2d 817 [1989]). In our opinion, the absence of this relevant information precludes a determination of the action upon the submission of agreed upon facts. The submission should have been dismissed as inadequate, and the parties permitted to submit a more definite statement of facts or proceed to a trial on the disputed issue (see Bhutta Realty Corp., 165 AD2d 852 [1990]; Coccio, 151 AD2d 817 [1989]).

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

—[*1] Smith & Laquercia, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Robert W. Napoles of counsel), for appellant.

Goidel & Siegel, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Andrew B. Siegel of counsel), for respondent Vitaly Polyakov.

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 to permanently stay arbitration of a claim for supplementary uninsured motorist benefits, New York Central Mutual Fire Insurance Company appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Balter, J.), dated June 17, 2009, which denied the petition and directed the parties to proceed to arbitration.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the petition is granted, and the arbitration is permanently stayed.

On September 1, 2007, the respondent Vitaly Polyakov (hereinafter Polyakov) was involved in a motor vehicle accident while driving a motorcycle which he owned. Polyakov’s motorcycle hit the rear end of the automobile of the respondent P. Tsismanakis while that automobile was stopped at a traffic light on Coney Island Avenue in Brooklyn. Polyakov reported to the police officer who responded to the scene that an unidentified vehicle struck his motorcycle causing him to swerve and hit the Tsismanakis vehicle in the rear. The police accident report did not list any insurance information for either the Tsismanakis vehicle or the motorcycle. However, at the time of the accident, the respondent Mikhail Polyakov (hereinafter the named insured), Polyakov’s father, had a policy of automobile insurance issued by the petitioner, New York Central Mutual Fire Insurance Company. The only vehicle named under that policy as a covered vehicle was a 2001 Nissan Maxima owned by the named insured.

By letter dated September 28, 2007 (hereinafter the notice of accident), Polyakov’s counsel advised the petitioner that Polyakov was involved in the subject accident while he “occupied [an] uninsured vehicle.” Polyakov advised the petitioner of his intent to file a claim for no-fault first-party benefits under the subject policy as the son of the named insured who was a member of the same household. Polyakov also advised of his intent to pursue claims “under the hit and run provisions of the [subject] policy.” Notably, in the application for no-fault benefits signed by Polyakov, he asserted, inter alia, that the owner of the motorcycle he was driving was “unknown at this time.” [*2]

By letter dated October 12, 2007 (hereinafter the denial of claim), from the petitioner’s counsel to Polyakov’s counsel, Polyakov was advised that his claim for benefits under the supplementary uninsured/underinsured motorists endorsement (hereinafter the SUM endorsement) of the subject policy was denied. The petitioner averred that its investigation revealed that Polyakov was the titled owner of the motorcycle which he was riding at the time of the accident. In addition, the motorcycle was not an insured vehicle under the subject policy. Consequently, the petitioner advised Polyakov that his claim for SUM benefits must be denied because the SUM endorsement excluded coverage for bodily injury to an insured while occupying a motor vehicle owned by that insured which was not insured under the subject policy. The petitioner also reserved its rights to deny coverage for any additional reasons that later came to its attention.

By demand for arbitration dated March 5, 2009, submitted to the American Arbitration Association, New York State Sum Arbitrational Tribunal, Polyakov made a demand on the petitioner for arbitration of his claim for SUM benefits. On or about March 23, 2009, the petitioner commenced this proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 to permanently stay arbitration of Polyakov’s claim. The Supreme Court denied the petition and directed the parties to proceed to arbitration. We reverse.

The policy language in question was not ambiguous, and the petitioner was entitled to have the provisions it relied on to disclaim coverage enforced (see Matter of USAA Cas. Ins. Co. v Hughes, 35 AD3d 486, 487-488 [2006]; see generally Baughman v Merchants Mut. Ins. Co., 87 NY2d 589, 592 [1996]; Government Empls. Ins. Co. v Kligler, 42 NY2d 863, 864-865 [1977]). The SUM endorsement under the subject policy provided, in relevant part, that “[t]his SUM coverage does not apply . . . [t]o bodily injury to an insured incurred while occupying a motor vehicle owned by that insured, if such motor vehicle is not insured for SUM coverage by the policy under which a claim is made.” This language is not ambiguous and the terms must be construed according to their plain and ordinary meaning. This policy exclusion unambiguously excluded from SUM coverage compensation for bodily injuries sustained by an insured when injured in a motor vehicle accident with an uninsured vehicle, while occupying a motor vehicle he or she owns, which vehicle was not covered under the policy (see Matter of USAA Cas. Ins. Co. v Hughes, 35 AD3d at 488; Matter of Utica Mut. Ins. Co. v Reid, 22 AD3d 127, 129 [2005]; Matter of New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. [Prehoda], 231 AD2d 829, 829-830 [1996]). There is no dispute that Polyakov, at the time of the accident, was occupying a vehicle, the motorcycle, that he owned but that was not covered under the subject policy.

In addition, contrary to Polyakov’s contention, the exclusion from coverage also would have been applicable under the mandatory uninsured motorists provision of the policy, which similarly provides that the petitioner does “not provide Uninsured Motorists Coverage for ‘bodily injury’ sustained: 1. By an insured while ‘occupying’, or when struck by, any motor vehicle owned by that ‘insured’ which is not insured for this coverage under this policy.” However, as the petitioner correctly argues, the mandatory uninsured motorists provision was removed from the subject policy by amendment pursuant to Section III of the Amendment of Policy Provisions—New York, and the SUM endorsement was added (see generally 11 NYCRR 60-2.3 [e]).

Accordingly, the petition should have been granted (see Matter of USAA Cas. Ins. Co. v Hughes, 35 AD3d at 488; Matter of Utica Mut. Ins. Co. v Reid, 22 AD3d at 129; Matter of New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. [Prehoda], 231 AD2d at 829-830; cf. Matter of Metropolitan Prop. & Liab. Co. v Feduchka, 135 AD2d 715 [1987]; see generally Government Empls. Ins. Co. v Kligler, 42 NY2d at 864-865).

The parties’ remaining contentions either are without merit or have been rendered academic. Skelos, J.P., Covello, Hall and Sgroi, JJ., concur.

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

APPELLATE TERM: 2nd, 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 April 23, 2009. The order denied plaintiff’s motion for leave to enter a default judgment.

ORDERED that the order is modified by providing that plaintiff’s motion is denied with leave to renew upon proper papers; as so modified, the order is affirmed without costs.

In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, plaintiff moved for leave to enter a default judgment based upon defendant’s failure to appear or answer the complaint or, in the alternative, for an order finding for all purposes in the action that plaintiff had established a prima facie case. The motion was unopposed. The Civil Court denied the motion, and this appeal by plaintiff ensued.

In support of its motion, plaintiff proffered neither an affidavit nor a verified complaint by a party with personal knowledge setting forth the factual basis for the claim, as is required by CPLR 3215 (f). Rather, plaintiff submitted a complaint verified by counsel, who did not demonstrate personal knowledge of the facts, and an affidavit of the president of a third-party billing company, which affidavit did not establish that the documents annexed to plaintiff’s motion were admissible pursuant to CPLR 4518 (see Art of Healing Medicine, P.C. v Travelers [*2]Home & Mar. Ins. Co., 55 AD3d 644 [2008]; Andrew Carothers, M.D., P.C. v Geico Indem. Co., 24 Misc 3d 19 [App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2009]; Dan Med., P.C. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 14 Misc 3d 44 [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2006]).

Since plaintiff’s motion papers did not demonstrate a prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, the Civil Court properly denied the motion (see All Mental Care Medicine, P.C. v Allstate Ins. Co., 15 Misc 3d 129[A], 2007 NY Slip Op 50612[U] [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2007]). Furthermore, plaintiff is not entitled to the alternative relief it sought, a finding for all purposes in the action that it had established its prima facie case (see e.g. B.Y., M.D., P.C. v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 26 Misc 3d 95 [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2010]). However, in the circumstances presented, we modify the order to provide that plaintiff’s motion is denied with leave to renew upon proper papers.

Weston, J.P., Rios and Steinhardt, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: May 13, 2010

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

APPELLATE TERM: 2nd, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Diane A. Lebedeff, J.), entered March 17, 2009, deemed from a judgment of the same court entered April 6, 2009 (see CPLR 5501 [c]). The judgment, entered pursuant to the March 17, 2009 order granting plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and denying defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $479.50.

ORDERED that the judgment is reversed without costs, the order entered March 17, 2009 is vacated, plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is denied, and defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted without prejudice to plaintiff’s commencement of a new action.

In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, plaintiff moved for summary judgment. Defendant opposed the motion and cross-moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the action was premature because it was commenced before defendant had received responses to its outstanding verification requests. By order entered March 17, 2009, the Civil Court granted plaintiff’s motion and denied defendant’s cross motion. Defendant’s appeal from that order is deemed to be from the judgment which was [*2]subsequently entered (see CPLR 5501 [c]).

The affidavit of defendant’s claims representative established that defendant had timely mailed its request and follow-up request for verification to plaintiff (see Residential Holding Corp. v Scottsdale Ins. Co., 286 AD2d 679 [2001]; Delta Diagnostic Radiology, P.C. v Chubb Group of Ins., 17 Misc 3d 18 [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2007]) and that plaintiff had failed to provide the requested verification. In opposition to defendant’s cross motion, plaintiff did not demonstrate that it had provided defendant, prior to the commencement of the action, with the requested verification. Consequently, under the circumstances presented, the 30-day period within which defendant was required to pay or deny the claims did not commence to run (see Insurance Department Regulations [11 NYCRR] § 65-3.8 [a]; Central Suffolk Hosp. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 24 AD3d 492 [2005]; Hospital for Joint Diseases v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 8 AD3d 533 [2004]; Vista Surgical Supplies, Inc. v General Assur. Co., 12 Misc 3d 129[A], 2006 NY Slip Op 51034[U] [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2006]), and plaintiff’s action is premature (Hospital for Joint Diseases v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 44 AD3d 903 [2007]). We do not reach any other issue.

Accordingly, the judgment is reversed, the order entered March 17, 2009 is vacated, plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is denied, and defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted without prejudice to plaintiff’s commencement of a new action.

Weston, J.P., Rios and Steinhardt, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: May 13, 2010

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

APPELLATE TERM: 2nd, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Diane A. Lebedeff, J.), entered March 18, 2009, deemed from a judgment of the same court entered April 2, 2009 (see CPLR 5501 [c]). The judgment, entered pursuant to the March 18, 2009 order denying defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and granting plaintiff’s cross motion for summary judgment, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $4,250.90.

ORDERED that the judgment is reversed without costs, the order entered March 18, 2009 is vacated, defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted and plaintiff’s cross motion for summary judgment is denied.

In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that plaintiff’s treatments were not medically necessary, and plaintiff cross-moved for summary judgment. The Civil Court denied defendant’s motion and granted plaintiff’s cross motion. This appeal by defendant ensued. A judgment was subsequently entered, from which the appeal is deemed to be taken (see CPLR 5501 [c]).

The affidavit submitted by defendant’s senior litigation examiner sufficiently established [*2]that the denial of claim forms at issue were timely mailed pursuant to defendant’s standard office practice or procedure (see Residential Holding Corp. v Scottsdale Ins. Co., 286 AD2d 679 [2001]; Delta Diagnostic Radiology, P.C. v Chubb Group of Ins., 17 Misc 3d 16 [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2007]). The sworn peer review report and the sworn independent medical examination report by defendant’s chiropractors provided a factual basis and medical rationale for their determination that the treatments at issue were not medically necessary (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]). Consequently, defendant’s moving papers made a prima facie showing that defendant was entitled to judgment as a matter of law and shifted the burden to plaintiff to raise a triable issue of fact.

The affidavit submitted by plaintiff in opposition to defendant’s motion was insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact, as it merely consisted of a conclusory statement by the affiant, the doctor who had provided the treatments, that he reaffirmed his opinion that the disputed services were medically necessary. The affiant did not refer to, or discuss, the determination of defendant’s chiropractors. Consequently, plaintiff failed to demonstrate the existence of an issue of fact with respect to medical necessity (see 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]), and defendant’s motion for summary judgment should have been granted.

Accordingly, the judgment is reversed, the order entered March 18, 2009 is vacated, defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted and plaintiff’s cross motion for summary judgment is denied.

Weston, J.P., Rios and Steinhardt, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: May 13, 2010

—[*1] Lawrence L. Kaye, P.C., Brooklyn, N.Y., for appellant.

Martin, Fallon & MullÉ, Huntington, N.Y. (Richard C. MullÉ of counsel), for respondent.

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 to vacate an arbitration award dated October 29, 2008, as modified December 1, 2008, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Cohen, J.), entered July 9, 2009, which, upon a decision of the same court dated May 13, 2009, denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the judgment is modified, on the law, by adding thereto a provision pursuant to CPLR 7511 (e) confirming the award dated October 29, 2008, as modified December 1, 2008; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed, with costs payable by the petitioner.

“Consistent with the public policy in favor of arbitration, the grounds specified in CPLR 7511 for vacating or modifying a no-fault arbitration award are few in number and narrowly applied” (Matter of Mercury Cas. Co. v Healthmakers Med. Group, P.C., 67 AD3d 1017, 1017 [2009]). “An arbitration award can be vacated by a court pursuant to CPLR 7511 (b) on only three narrow grounds: if it is clearly violative of a strong public policy, if it is totally or completely irrational, or if it manifestly exceeds a specific, enumerated limitation on the arbitrator’s power” (Matter of Erin Constr. & Dev. Co., Inc. v Meltzer, 58 AD3d 729, 729 [2009]; see Matter of United Fedn. of Teachers, Local 2, AFT, AFL-CIO v Board of Educ. of City School Dist. of City of N.Y., 1 NY3d 72, 79 [2003]; Matter of Board of Educ. of Arlington Cent. School Dist. v Arlington Teachers Assn., 78 NY2d 33, 37 [1991]; Cifuentes v Rose & Thistle, Ltd., 32 AD3d 816 [2006]; Matter of Rockland County Bd. of Coop. Educ. Servs. v BOCES Staff Assn., 308 AD2d 452, 453 [2003]). “An award is irrational if there is ‘no proof whatever to justify the award’ ” (Matter of Erin Constr. & Dev. Co., Inc. v Meltzer, 58 AD3d at 730, quoting Matter of Peckerman v D & D Assoc., 165 AD2d 289, 296 [1991]). “Even if the arbitrators misapply substantive rules of law or make an error of fact, unless one of the three narrow grounds applies in the particular case, the award will not be vacated” (Matter of Erin Constr. & Dev. Co., Inc. v Meltzer, 58 AD3d at 730; see Wien & Malkin LLP v Helmsley-Spear, Inc., 6 NY3d 471 [2006]; Matter of Silverman [Benmor Coats], 61 NY2d 299, 308 [1984]; Matter of Sprinzen [Nomberg], 46 NY2d 623, 629 [1979]; Cifuentes v Rose & Thistle, Ltd., 32 AD3d at 816). “An arbitrator is not bound by principles of substantive law or rules of evidence, and may do justice and apply his or her own sense of law and equity to the facts as he or she finds them to be” (Matter of Erin Constr. & Dev. Co., Inc. v Meltzer, 58 AD3d at 730; see Matter of Silverman [Benmor Coats], [*2]61 NY2d at 308).

Here, the petitioner failed to demonstrate the existence of any of the statutory grounds for vacating the arbitrator’s award. Contrary to the petitioner’s contention, the arbitrator’s award, as modified, finds evidentiary support in the record and was rationally based (see Matter of American Express Prop. Cas. Co. v Vinci, 63 AD3d 1055, 1055 [2009]; Matter of Mangano v United States Fire Ins. Co., 55 AD3d 916, 917 [2008]). In addition, even if the arbitrator failed to consider specified evidence, vacatur of the award would not be warranted (see Matter of American Express Prop. Cas. Co. v Vinci, 63 AD3d at 1056; see also Montanez v New York City Hous. Auth., 52 AD3d 338, 339 [2008]).

Upon denying a motion to vacate or modify an arbitration award, the court must confirm the award (see CPLR 7511 [e]; Matter of Mercury Cas. Co. v Healthmakers Med. Group, P.C., 67 AD3d at 1017-1018). Thus, given this Court’s affirmance of the Supreme Court’s denial of the petition to vacate or modify the award, the award must be confirmed (see CPLR 7511 [e]). Covello, J.P., Santucci, Angiolillo and Dickerson, JJ., concur.

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

APPELLATE TERM: 2nd, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Diane A. Lebedeff, J.), entered February 10, 2009, deemed, in part, from a judgment of the same court entered April 22, 2009 (see CPLR 5501 [c]). The judgment, entered pursuant to so much of the February 10, 2009 order as granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment to the extent of awarding plaintiff summary judgment on its first cause of action, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $85. The order, insofar as appealed from, denied so much of defendant’s cross motion as sought summary judgment dismissing plaintiff’s third cause of action.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed without costs; and it is further,

ORDERED that the order, insofar as appealed from, is reversed without costs and so much of defendant’s cross motion as sought summary judgment dismissing plaintiff’s third cause of action 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 or, in the alternative, for an order, pursuant to CPLR 3212 (g), finding that defendant had established the timely mailing of its denial of claim forms. Insofar as is relevant to this appeal, the Civil Court granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment to the extent of [*2]awarding plaintiff summary judgment on its first
cause of action and denied so much of defendant’s cross motion as sought summary judgment dismissing plaintiff’s third cause of action. Defendant’s appeal ensued. A judgment subsequently was entered upon the first cause of action. The appeal from the order is deemed, in part, to be taken from the judgment (see CPLR 5501 [c]).

On appeal, defendant’s sole contention with respect to plaintiff’s prima facie case is that the affidavit of plaintiff’s billing manager failed to establish that the documents annexed to plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment were admissible as business records. Upon our review of the record, we find that the affidavit was sufficient to establish that the documents annexed to plaintiff’s moving papers were admissible pursuant to CPLR 4518 (see Art of Healing Medicine, P.C. v Travelers Home & Mar. Ins. Co., 55 AD3d 644 [2008]; Dan Med., P.C. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 14 Misc 3d 44 [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2006]). The affidavit of defendant’s claims division employee, submitted in opposition to plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, failed to address plaintiff’s first cause of action. Accordingly, defendant failed to raise a triable issue of fact with regard to said cause of action, and the judgment is affirmed.

With respect to plaintiff’s third cause of action, defendant established that it had timely denied the claim at issue on the ground that the services provided were not medically necessary (see St. Vincent’s Hosp. of Richmond v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 50 AD3d 1123 [2008]; Residential Holding Corp. v Scottsdale Ins. Co., 286 AD2d 679 [2001]; Delta Diagnostic Radiology, P.C. v Chubb Group of Ins., 17 Misc 3d 16 [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2007]). In support of its cross motion for summary judgment, defendant submitted, among other things, an affirmed peer review report which set forth a factual basis and medical rationale for the opinion that there was a lack of medical necessity for the services for which payment was sought in the third cause of action (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]). Plaintiff failed to rebut defendant’s evidence of the lack of medical necessity for these services. Consequently, defendant established its prima facie entitlement to summary judgment with respect to plaintiff’s third cause of action, and plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact with respect to this cause of action. Accordingly, so much of defendant’s cross motion as sought summary judgment dismissing plaintiff’s third cause of action is granted.

Pesce, P.J., Weston and Steinhardt, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: May 10, 2010

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

APPELLATE TERM: 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS

Appeal from an amended order of the District Court of Nassau County, First District (Andrew M. Engel, J.), dated July 17, 2008. The amended order granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment.

ORDERED that the amended order is reversed without costs and plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is denied.

In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, plaintiff moved for summary judgment, and defendant opposed the motion on the ground that the services provided were not medically necessary. The District Court granted plaintiff’s motion, and this appeal ensued.

While defendant argues that the affidavit of plaintiff’s billing collection supervisor was insufficient to establish plaintiff’s prima facie case, we do not pass on the propriety of the determination of the District Court with respect thereto as defendant raises this issue for the first time on appeal (see Westchester Neurodiagnostic, P.C. v Allstate Ins. Co., 24 Misc 3d 133[A], 2009 NY Slip Op 51385[U] [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2009]; Nyack Hosp. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 21 Misc 3d 133[A], 2008 NY Slip Op 52184[U] [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2008]; Mary Immaculate Hosp. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 21 Misc 3d 130[A], 2008 NY Slip Op 52046[U] [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2008]). [*2]

In support of its motion, plaintiff submitted defendant’s affirmed peer review reports and argued that plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment because the peer review reports did not adequately set forth a medical justification to support the peer review doctor’s conclusions that the services at issue were not medically necessary. In opposition to plaintiff’s motion, defendant established that its denial of claim forms, which relied upon the peer review reports, were timely (see Residential Holding Corp. v Scottsdale Ins. Co., 286 AD2d 679 [2001]). Contrary to the conclusion of the District Court, we find that the peer review reports set forth a sufficient factual basis and medical rationale to demonstrate the existence of an issue of fact as to medical necessity (see B.Y., M.D., P.C. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 26 Misc 3d 135[A], 2010 NY Slip Op 50144[U] [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2010]; see also 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]). Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment should have been denied (see Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557 [1980]).

Tanenbaum, J.P., Molia and Iannacci, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: May 10, 2010

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

APPELLATE TERM: 2nd, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Robin S. Garson, J.), entered April 28, 2008. The order, insofar as appealed from, denied defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment.

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 both the motion and the cross motion. Insofar as is relevant to this appeal, the Civil Court found that defendant had established that it had timely and properly denied the claims at issue after requesting that plaintiff appear for an examination under oath (EUO), and held that “the sole issue remaining to be determined at trial is the EUO no-show as a proper basis of denial” (see CPLR 3212 [g]). Defendant appeals from so much of the order as denied its cross motion for summary judgment.

In opposition to plaintiff’s motion and in support of its cross motion for summary judgment, defendant submitted the affirmation of a partner in the law firm retained by defendant to conduct plaintiff’s EUO. Counsel alleged facts sufficient to establish that plaintiff had failed to appear at counsel’s law office for duly scheduled EUOs (see W & Z Acupuncture, P.C. v Amex Assur. Co., 24 Misc 3d 142[A], 2009 NY Slip Op 51732[U] [App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2009]; see also Stephen Fogel Psychological, P.C. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 35 AD3d 720 [2006]). The appearance of the eligible injured person’s assignee at an EUO upon a proper request is a condition precedent to the insurer’s liability on the policy (see Insurance Department Regulations [11 NYCRR] § 65-1.1; Stephen Fogel Psychological, P.C., 35 AD3d at [*2]722; W & Z Acupuncture, P.C., 24 Misc 3d 142[A], 2009 NY Slip Op 51732[U]).

In light of the foregoing, and the Civil Court’s CPLR 3212 (g) findings that the EUO requests were mailed and that the claims were timely denied, from which no appeal has been taken by plaintiff, the Civil Court should have granted defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Golia, J.P., Pesce and Rios, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: April 16, 2010

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

APPELLATE TERM: 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS

Appeal from a judgment of the District Court of Suffolk County, Second District (Patrick J. Barton, J.), entered February 16, 2006. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $11,220.

ORDERED that the judgment is reversed without costs and judgment is directed to be entered in favor of defendant dismissing the complaint.

Plaintiff Specialty Surgical Services commenced this action to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits for medical services rendered. After a nonjury trial, the District Court awarded judgment in favor of plaintiff in the principal sum of $11,220. The instant appeal by defendant ensued.

Defendant’s contention, that plaintiff lacks standing since the assignment executed by plaintiff’s assignor was in favor of North Jersey Center for Surgery rather than plaintiff, lacks merit. A copy of the assignment accompanied plaintiff’s claim form, and the discrepancy was apparent on its face. Defendant did not seek verification with respect to the assignment, and its denial of claim form did not deny the claim on the ground that the assignment was defective. Consequently, defendant is precluded from litigating this issue (see Hospital for Joint Diseases v Travelers Prop. Cas. Ins. Co., 9 NY3d 312 [2007]; Davydov v Progressive Ins. Co., 25 Misc 3d 19 [App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2009]).

At trial, defendant’s doctor testified that the services provided were not medically necessary, and defendant also admitted into evidence a copy of the doctor’s affirmed peer review report, which was to the same effect. Both the doctor’s testimony and his report set forth a factual basis and medical rationale for his conclusion that the services rendered were not medical necessary. This evidence was not rebutted by plaintiff. In view of the foregoing, we disagree [*2]with the District Court’s finding that defendant failed to establish that the services provided were not medically necessary. Accordingly, the judgment is reversed and judgment is directed to be entered in favor of defendant dismissing the complaint (see Cohen v Hallmark Cards, Inc., 45 NY2d 493 [1978]; S.J. Pahng, M.D., P.C. v Progressive Northeastern Ins. Co., 20 Misc 3d 137[A]; 2008 NY Slip Op 51537[U] [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2008]; see also 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]; 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]).

LaCava and Iannacci, JJ., concur.

Molia, J.P., taking no part.
Decision Date: April 16, 2010