[*1]

Lawrence N. Rogak, LLC, Oceanside, NY, for appellant.

Law Offices of Michael H. Joseph, PLLC, White Plains, NY (Clifford S. Nelson of counsel), for respondent.

In an action to recover first-party no-fault benefits under a policy of automobile insurance, the defendant appeals from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Sam D. Walker, J.), dated September 30, 2017, and (2) a judgment of the same court, dated October 26, 2017. The order granted the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in the principal sum of $44,573.86. The judgment, upon the order, is in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant in the principal sum of $44,573.86.

Ordered that the appeal from the order is dismissed; and it is further,

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed; and it is further,

Ordered that one bill of costs is awarded to the plaintiff.

The appeal from the order must be dismissed because the right of direct appeal therefrom terminated with the entry of the judgment in the action (see Matter of Aho, 39 NY2d 241, 248 [1976]). The issues raised on the appeal from the order are brought up for review and have been considered on the appeal from the judgment (see CPLR 5501 [a] [1]).

In 2008, a vehicle operated by the plaintiff and insured by the defendant, Merchants Mutual Insurance Company, was struck in the rear by a sanitation truck owned by the City of White Plains. The plaintiff subsequently underwent surgery to remove his L5-S1 disc and replace it with an artificial lumbar disc. After the defendant denied the subject claims on the ground that the surgery was not medically necessary, the plaintiff commenced the instant action to recover first-party no-fault benefits. The defendant answered the complaint and the plaintiff later moved for summary judgment in the principal sum of $44,573.86, representing unpaid first-party no-fault benefits under the insurance policy. The defendant opposed the motion. The Supreme Court granted the plaintiff’s motion and issued a judgment in favor of the plaintiff in the principal sum of $44,573.86. The defendant appeals.

“The No-Fault Automobile Insurance Law defines ‘first party benefits’ as ‘payments [*2]to reimburse a person for basic economic loss on account of personal injury arising out of the use or operation of a motor vehicle’ ” (Matter of Johnson v Buffalo & Erie County Private Indus. Council, 84 NY2d 13, 18 [1994], quoting Insurance Law § 5102 [b]; see Matter of Fiduciary Ins. Co. v American Bankers Ins. Co. of Florida, 132 AD3d 40, 47 [2015]). The no-fault law defines “basic economic loss” (Insurance Law § 5102 [a]) as “[a]ll necessary expenses incurred for: (i) medical, hospital . . . [and] surgical . . . services” (id. § 5102 [a] [1] [i]) as well as loss of earnings from work. Like the statute, the regulations promulgated thereunder expressly state that reimbursable medical expenses consist of “necessary expenses” (11 NYCRR 65-1.1; see Long Is. Radiology v Allstate Ins. Co., 36 AD3d 763, 765 [2007]).

A plaintiff makes a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting evidence that the prescribed statutory billing forms were mailed and received, and that payment of no-fault benefits was overdue (see Insurance Law § 5106 [a]; 11 NYCRR 65-3.8 [c]; Viviane Etienne Med. Care, P.C. v Country-Wide Ins. Co., 25 NY3d 498, 501 [2015]; A.B. Med. Servs., PLLC v Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 39 AD3d 779, 780 [2007]; New York & Presbyt. Hosp. v Allstate Ins. Co., 29 AD3d 547, 547 [2006]).

In support of his motion, the plaintiff submitted, inter alia, the disputed claims, the defendant’s form denials, the affidavit of his surgeon, Richard Peress, and the affidavit of Christine Taylor, assistant director of patient accounts for Phelps Memorial Hospital (hereinafter the hospital).

The plaintiff demonstrated, prima facie, that the prescribed statutory billing forms relative to the medical services provided by Peress were mailed and received, and that the defendant failed to pay or validly deny the claims within the permissible 30 days (see Insurance Law § 5102 [a] [1]; Global Liberty Ins. Co. v W. Joseph Gorum, M.D., P.C., 143 AD3d 768 [2016]; New York & Presbyt. Hosp. v Selective Ins. Co. of Am., 43 AD3d 1019 [2007]; Hobby v CNA Ins. Co., 267 AD2d 1084 [1999]; see also DeGiorgio v Racanelli, 136 AD3d 734 [2016]; Geffner v North Shore Univ. Hosp., 57 AD3d 839 [2008]). In opposition, the defendant failed to submit evidence in admissible form sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the claimed benefits were properly denied on the ground of lack of medical justification (see 11 NYCRR 65-3.8 [b] [4]).

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the plaintiff had standing to pursue his claims for no-fault benefits (see Allstate Ins. Co. v Kapeleris, 183 AD3d 626 [2020]).

Given that the amount of the outstanding no-fault benefits relative to the medical services provided by Peress exceeds the principal sum awarded in the judgment, we need not reach the parties’ remaining contentions, including whether the plaintiff was entitled to no-fault benefits relative to the medical services provided by the hospital.

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment. Barros, J.P., Iannacci, Chambers and Christopher, JJ., concur.

Decided on June 17, 2022

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

Kopelevich & Feldsherova, P.C. (David Landfair of counsel), for appellant. Rivkin Radler, LLP (Stuart M. Bodoff and Cheryl F. Korman of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Jill R. Epstein, J.), entered April 1, 2021. The order granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

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

In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Civil Court granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that plaintiff’s assignor failed to appear for duly scheduled examinations under oath (EUOs).

Contrary to plaintiff’s contention, defendant established, prima facie, that initial and follow-up letters scheduling an EUO were timely and properly mailed in accordance with defendant’s standard office practices and procedures, as plaintiff’s assignor’s sworn statement confirmed that the address used by defendant was the proper address and neither plaintiff nor its assignor disputed assignor’s receipt of the letters (see St. Vincent’s Hosp. of Richmond v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 50 AD3d 1123 [2008]). In addition, defendant established, prima facie, that plaintiff’s assignor failed to appear on either of the scheduled dates (see Celestin v 40 Empire Blvd., Inc., 168 AD3d 805 [2019]) and that the claims were timely denied on that ground (see St. Vincent’s Hosp. of Richmond, 50 AD3d 1123).

Accordingly, the order is affirmed.

ALIOTTA, P.J., GOLIA and BUGGS, JJ., concur.

Decided on June 17, 2022

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

The Rybak Firm, PLLC (Damin J. Toell and Richard Rozhik of counsel), for appellant. Law Office of Goldstein, Flecker & Hopkins (Lawrence J. Chanice of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Odessa Kennedy, J.), dated March 12, 2021. The order, insofar as appealed from and as limited by the brief, granted the branch of defendant’s motion seeking summary judgment dismissing so much of the complaint as sought to recover on plaintiff’s claims for services billed using CPT codes 97810 and 97811, and denied the branch of plaintiff’s cross motion seeking summary judgment.

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

In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Civil Court as granted the branch of defendant’s motion seeking summary judgment dismissing so much of the complaint as sought to recover on plaintiff’s claims for services billed using CPT codes 97810 and 97811 on the ground that defendant had paid these claims in accordance with the workers’ compensation fee schedule for acupuncture services performed by chiropractors, and denied the branch of plaintiff’s cross motion seeking summary judgment.

For the reasons stated in Mind & Body Acupuncture, P.C., as Assignee of Wilson, Bernadette v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (— Misc 3d —, 2022 NY Slip Op — [appeal No. 2019-1418 K C], decided herewith), the order, insofar as appealed from, is affirmed.

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

The Rybak Firm, PLLC (Damin J. Toell and Richard Rozhik of counsel), for appellant. Zaklukiewicz, Puzo & Morrissey, LLP (William E. Morrissey, Jr. of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Nicholas W. Moyne, J.), dated February 25, 2021. 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, with $25 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.

In support of its motion, defendant submitted an affidavit and documentary evidence which established, prima facie, its lack of coverage defense (see Tam Med. Supply Corp. v Omni Indem. Co., 48 Misc 3d 142[A], 2015 NY Slip Op 51294[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2015]; Delta Diagnostic Radiology, P.C. v American Tr. Ins. Co., 44 Misc 3d 136[A], 2014 NY Slip Op 51240[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2014]; Vincent Med. Servs., P.C. v Omni Indem. Co., 42 Misc 3d 142[A], 2014 NY Slip Op 50224[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2014]; Great Health Care Chiropractic, P.C. v Omni Indem. Co., 40 Misc 3d 139[A], 2013 NY Slip Op 51450[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2013]). As plaintiff failed to demonstrate the existence of a triable issue of fact, the Civil Court properly granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and denied plaintiff’s cross motion for summary judgment.

Accordingly, the order is affirmed.

ALIOTTA, P.J., GOLIA and BUGGS, JJ., concur.

The Rybak Firm, PLLC (Damin J. Toell and Richard Rozhik of counsel), for appellant. Law Office of Goldstein, Flecker & Hopkins (Lawrence J. Chanice of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Odessa Kennedy, J.), dated March 22, 2021. The order, insofar as appealed from, granted the branches of defendant’s motion seeking summary judgment dismissing so much of the complaint as sought to recover on plaintiff’s claims for services billed using CPT codes 97810 and 97811, and for services performed on or after August 10, 2016, and denied the branch of plaintiff’s cross motion seeking summary judgment.

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

In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Civil Court as granted the branches of defendant’s motion seeking summary judgment dismissing so much of the complaint as sought to recover on plaintiff’s claims for services billed using CPT codes 97810 and 97811 on the ground that defendant had paid these claims in accordance with the workers’ compensation fee schedule for acupuncture services performed by chiropractors, and so much of the complaint as sought to recover on plaintiff’s claims for services performed on or after August 10, 2016 on the ground of lack of medical necessity, and denied the branch of plaintiff’s cross motion seeking summary judgment.

Contrary to plaintiff’s contention, the affidavit plaintiff submitted in opposition to the branch of defendant’s motion seeking summary judgment dismissing so much of the complaint as sought to recover on plaintiff’s claims for services rendered on or after August 10, 2016 failed to raise a triable issue of fact as it did not meaningfully refer to, let alone rebut, defendant’s prima facie showing of lack of 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 Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists [*2]2009]).

To the extent plaintiff appeals from so much of the order as granted the branch of defendant’s motion seeking summary judgment dismissing so much of the complaint as sought to recover on plaintiff’s claims for acupuncture services billed using CPT codes 97810 and 97811, for the reasons stated in Mind & Body Acupuncture, P.C., as Assignee of Wilson, Bernadette v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (— Misc 3d —, 2022 NY Slip Op — [appeal No. 2019-1418 K C], decided herewith), plaintiff’s contention lacks merit.

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

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

Decided on June 17, 2022

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

The Rybak Firm, PLLC (Damin J. Toell and Richard Rozhik of counsel), for appellant. Law Office of Goldstein, Flecker & Hopkins (Lawrence J. Chanice of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Odessa Kennedy, J.), dated March 3, 2021. The order, insofar as appealed from, upon reargument, adhered to that court’s prior determination in an order dated March 16, 2020 granting the branch of defendant’s cross motion seeking summary judgment dismissing so much of the complaint as sought to recover upon claims billed using CPT codes 97810 and 97811.

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

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. By order dated March 16, 2020, the Civil Court denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and granted the branch of defendant’s cross motion seeking summary judgment dismissing so much of the complaint as sought to recover upon claims billed using CPT codes 97810 and 97811 on the ground that defendant had paid these claims in accordance with the workers’ compensation fee schedule for acupuncture services performed by chiropractors. Plaintiff thereafter moved to renew and reargue its motion for summary judgment and its opposition to defendant’s cross motion. Plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Civil Court dated March 3, 2021 as, upon reargument, adhered to the court’s prior determination in the March 16, 2020 order denying plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and granting the branch of defendant’s cross motion seeking summary judgment dismissing so much of the complaint as sought to recover upon claims billed using CPT codes 97810 and 97811.

For the reasons stated in Mind & Body Acupuncture, P.C., as Assignee of Wilson, Bernadette v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (— Misc 3d —, 2022 NY Slip Op — [appeal No. 2019-1418 K C], decided herewith), the order, insofar as appealed from, is affirmed.

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

The Rybak Firm, PLLC (Damin J. Toell of counsel), for appellant. Rubin, Fiorella, Friedman & Mercante, LLP (Daniel Passer and Kyeko Stewart of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Matthew P. Blum, J.), dated September 10, 2020. The order granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and denied plaintiff’s cross motion for summary judgment.

ORDERED that the order is modified by providing that defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is denied; as so modified, the order is affirmed, without costs.

In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Civil Court which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that plaintiff’s assignor had failed to appear for duly scheduled examinations under oath (EUOs), and denied plaintiff’s cross motion for summary judgment.

Although defendant established that the EUO scheduling letters had been timely mailed (see St. Vincent’s Hosp. of Richmond v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 50 AD3d 1123 [2008]), defendant failed to submit proof by someone with personal knowledge of the nonappearance of plaintiff’s assignor for the EUOs. In addition, defendant’s motion failed to establish, as a matter of law, that defendant had timely denied plaintiff’s claim after plaintiff’s assignor had allegedly failed to appear at two duly scheduled EUOs. Therefore, defendant failed to establish its entitlement to summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that plaintiff’s assignor had failed to appear for EUOs (see Westchester Med. Ctr. v Lincoln Gen. Ins. Co., 60 AD3d 1045 [2009]; Stephen Fogel Psychological, P.C. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 35 AD3d 720 [2006]).

Finally, plaintiff failed to demonstrate its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, as the proof submitted in support of its cross motion failed to establish that defendant failed to deny the claim within the 30-day period (see Viviane Etienne Med. Care, P.C. v [*2]Country-Wide Ins. Co., 25 NY3d 498 [2015]) or that defendant had issued denials that were conclusory, vague or without merit as a matter of law (see Ave T MPC Corp. v Auto One Ins. Co., 32 Misc 3d 128[A], 2011 NY Slip Op 51292[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2011]).

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

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

Decided on June 17, 2022

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

Hollander Legal Group, P.C. (Allan S. Hollander and Christopher Volpe of counsel), for appellant. Kopelevich & Feldsherova, P.C. (David Landfair of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Jill R. Epstein, J.), dated December 4, 2019. The order denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and, upon a search of the record, granted summary judgment to plaintiff.

ORDERED that the order is reversed, with $30 costs, and defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted.

In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, defendant appeals from an order of the Civil Court denying defendant’s motion which had sought summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that plaintiff failed to appear for duly scheduled examinations under oath (EUOs) and, upon a search of the record, granted summary judgment to plaintiff.

A review of the record indicates that the proof submitted by defendant in support of its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint demonstrated that defendant’s initial and follow-up letters scheduling the EUOs had been timely mailed (see St. Vincent’s Hosp. of Richmond v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 50 AD3d 1123 [2008]), that plaintiff failed to appear on either date (see Stephen Fogel Psychological, P.C. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 35 AD3d 720 [2006]; TAM Med. Supply Corp. v 21st Century Ins. Co., 57 Misc 3d 149[A], 2017 NY Slip Op 51510[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2017]), and that the claims were timely denied on that ground (see St. Vincent’s Hosp. of Richmond v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 50 AD3d 1123). As plaintiff’s opposition papers failed to rebut defendant’s prima facie showing, defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint should have been granted.

Accordingly, the order is reversed and defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted.

ALIOTTA, P.J., GOLIA and BUGGS, JJ., concur.

Law Offices of Buratti, Rothenberg & Burns (Rachel L. Hollander of counsel), for appellant. Zara Javakov, P.C. (Victoria Tarasova and Zara Javakov of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Jill R. Epstein, J.), entered November 1, 2019. The order, insofar as appealed from, denied the branch of defendant’s motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

ORDERED that the order, insofar as appealed from, is reversed, with $30 costs, and the branch of defendant’s motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted.

In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, defendant appeals from so much of an order of the Civil Court as denied the branch of defendant’s motion which had sought summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that plaintiff’s assignor had failed to appear for duly scheduled independent medical examinations (IMEs).

Insofar as relevant to this appeal, in support of its motion, defendant submitted an affidavit by the Director of Operations for Exam Coordinators Network, which had been retained by defendant to schedule IMEs of plaintiff’s assignor, which affidavit sufficiently demonstrated that the IME scheduling letters had been timely mailed to plaintiff’s assignor (see St. Vincent’s Hosp. of Richmond v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 50 AD3d 1123 [2008]). Defendant also demonstrated that the assignor failed to appear for the duly scheduled IMEs (see Stephen Fogel Psychological, P.C. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 35 AD3d 720 [2006]). Thus, defendant demonstrated that plaintiff failed to comply with a condition precedent to coverage (id. at 722). As defendant’s motion further demonstrated that defendant timely denied (see St. Vincent’s Hosp. of Richmond, 50 AD3d 1123) the claim on that ground, defendant demonstrated, prima facie, its entitlement to summary judgment and plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact in opposition. [*2]Contrary to the determination of the Civil Court, as the IMEs were scheduled before defendant received the claim at issue, defendant was not required to comply with the obligations of 11 NYCRR 65-3.6 (b) (see City Anesthesia Healthcare, P.C. v Erie Ins. Co. of NY, 70 Misc 3d 141[A], 2021 NY Slip Op 50135[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2021]; Vitality Chiropractic, P.C. v Kemper Ins. Co., 14 Misc 3d 94, 96 [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2006]; see also PV Holding Corp. v AB Quality Health Supply Corp., 189 AD3d 645 [2020]).

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

ALIOTTA, P.J., GOLIA and BUGGS, JJ., concur.

Law Offices of Buratti, Rothenberg & Burns (Bianca Maynard Francois of counsel), for appellant. Law Office of Damin J. Toell, P.C. (Damin J. Toell of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Consuelo Mallafre Melendez, J.), entered January 8, 2020. The order denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and granted plaintiff’s cross motion for summary judgment.

ORDERED that the order is reversed, with $30 costs, 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 appeals from an order of the Civil Court entered January 8, 2020 denying defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and granting plaintiff’s cross motion for summary judgment.

Plaintiff was required to submit its claim form to defendant within 45 days after the services were rendered (see 11 NYCRR 65-1.1; Synergy First Med., PLLC v MVAIC, 44 Misc 3d 127[A], 2014 NY Slip Op 50964[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2014]) and it is undisputed that plaintiff failed to do so. Defendant timely denied plaintiff’s claim seeking to recover for those services, based upon plaintiff’s untimely submission, and informed plaintiff that defendant would excuse the delay if plaintiff provided a “reasonable justification” therefor (see 11 NYCRR 65-3.3 [e]; see also Matter of Medical Socy. of State of NY v Serio, 100 NY2d 854, 862-863 [2003]; Synergy First Med., PLLC, 2014 NY Slip Op 50964[U]). In opposition to defendant’s motion, plaintiff demonstrated that it had initially sent the claim form at issue to a different insurance company, and that, after plaintiff learned, approximately one year later, that [*2]the information it had regarding the insurance company covering the accident was incorrect, it sent the claim form to defendant. However, plaintiff did not establish a reasonable justification for initially submitting the claim form to the wrong insurance company, given that the claim form which plaintiff alleged it submitted to the wrong insurance company bore defendant’s name and address. As a result, plaintiff did not establish that it had provided defendant with a reasonable justification for its untimely submission of the claim form to defendant.

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

ALIOTTA, P.J., GOLIA and BUGGS, JJ., concur.