SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

APPELLATE TERM: 2nd and 11th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS

Appeal by defendant from an order of the Civil Court, Kings County (M. Mendez, J.), entered May 5, 2004, which denied defendant’s motion to preclude, or in the alternative, to compel compliance with discovery demands and granted plaintiff’s cross motion for summary judgment.

Order affirmed without costs.

In this action to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, plaintiff health care provider established its prima facie entitlement to summary judgment by proof that it submitted a statutory claim form, setting forth the fact and amount of the losses
sustained, and that payment of no-fault benefits was overdue (see Insurance Law § 5106 [a]; Mary Immaculate Hosp. v Allstate Ins. Co., 5 AD3d 742 [2004]; Amaze Med. Supply v Eagle Ins. Co., 2 Misc 3d 128[A], 2003 NY Slip Op 51701[U] [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists]). The burden then shifted to defendant to create a triable issue of fact (Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]).

Absent tolling of the statutory time (Hospital for Joint Diseases v ELRAC, Inc., 11 AD3d 432, 434 [2004]; New York & Presbyt. Hosp. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 5 AD3d 568, 570 [2004]), defendant’s conceded failure to deny the claim, received September 25, 2002, until March 28, 2003, violated the 30-day claim determination period and precluded it from interposing its defenses aside from the claim that the incident was staged to defraud. All post-claim requests for examinations under oath (EUO) pursuant to the verification regulations must [*2]be made within prescribed time frames (11 NYCRR 65-3.5 [a], [d]; 11 NYCRR 65-3.6 [b]; New York Hosp. Med. Ctr. of Queens v Country-Wide Ins. Co., 295 AD2d 583, 584-585 [2002]). “Any attempt by the insurer to deny the claim prior to exhausting the verification protocols is premature and of no effect” (King’s Med. Supply Inc. v Allstate Ins. Co., 7 Misc 3d 128[A], 2005 NY Slip Op 50451[U] [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists]; see also New York & Presbyt. Hosp. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 5 AD3d at 570; King’s Med. Supply v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 5 Misc 3d 136[A], 2004 NY Slip Op 51550[U] [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists]). Here, defendant’s initial EUO request, its letter dated December 10, 2002, was itself untimely and did not schedule the EUO within the prescribed time. The assignor was therefore under no duty to appear for the first scheduled EUO and it is irrelevant that defendant may have duly rescheduled the EUO upon assignor’s initial non-appearance.

As to the fraud claim, which survives the preclusion sanction (Matter of Metro Med. Diagnostics v Eagle Ins. Co., 293 AD2d 751 [2002]), defendant’s proof thereof was not submitted in admissible form. None of the investigators’ reports or operators’ statements were sworn, and neither the affirmation of counsel, which alleged no basis to support an inference that any of the facts asserted in his statements were based on personal knowledge, nor the affidavit of defendant’s employee, which asserted merely the conclusory statement that “material misrepresentations [were] made in the presentation of the claim,” sufficed to allege the necessary facts. Thus, defendant failed to establish a triable issue of fraud and summary judgment was properly granted (see e.g. Ocean Diagnostic Imaging P.C. v Allstate Ins. Co., 6 Misc 3d 134[A], 2005 NY Slip Op 50189[U] [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists] [claims examiner’s conclusory assertions as to fraud insufficient]; Ocean Diagnostic Imaging P.C. v Lancer Ins. Co., 6 Misc 3d 62 [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2004] [unsworn investigation reports inadmissible in opposition to summary judgment motion]; Melbourne Med. P.C. v Utica Mut. Ins. Co., 4 Misc 3d 92 [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2004] [attorney’s factual allegations, without personal knowledge of the investigation, mere unsubstantiated hearsay]; Dotzel v Allstate Ins. Co., 2003 NY Slip Op 50853[U] [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists] [unsworn investigation reports inadmissible in opposition to summary judgment motion]).

In light of the foregoing, we need not address defendant’s remaining claims of error.

Pesce, P.J., and Patterson, J., concur.

Golia, J., dissents in part in a separate memorandum. [*3]
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
APPELLATE TERM : 2nd and 11th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT : PESCE, P.J., PATTERSON and GOLIA, JJ.
OCEAN DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING, P.C.
a/a/o ALICIA PRINCE,

Respondent,

-against-
UTICA MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY,

Appellant.

Golia, J., dissents in part and votes to modify the order and deny plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in the following memorandum:

Contrary to the holding of the majority, I find that the papers submitted by the defendant in opposition to the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment were sufficient to raise an issue of fact as to whether the defense of fraud was based upon a “founded belief that the alleged injur[ies] do[] not arise out of an insured incident” (Central Gen. Hosp. v Chubb Group of Ins. Cos., 90 NY2d 195, 199 [1997]).

For the reasons stated in my dissent in Ocean Diagnostic Imaging, P.C. v Lancer Ins. Co. (6 Misc 3d 62 [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2004]), I find that the unsworn reports when submitted in opposition to a motion for summary judgment and accompanied by an affidavit which makes reference to such reports, are sufficient for the purpose of raising a triable issue of fact. This Court must, when deciding a motion for summary judgment, interpret the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-movant (see Weiss v Garfield, 21 AD2d 156 [1964]). This is especially true where there is an allegation of fraud.

Accordingly, I would modify the order of the lower court and would deny the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment.
Decision Date: October 21, 2005

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

APPELLATE TERM: 2nd and 11th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS

Appeal by plaintiffs from an order of the Civil Court, Kings County (E. Nadelson, J.), entered June 14, 2004, denying their motion for partial summary judgment in favor of D.A.V. Chiropractic P.C.

Appeal as taken by plaintiff Daniel Kim’s Acupuncture P.C. unanimously dismissed.

Order unanimously affirmed without costs.

In this action to recover first-party no-fault benefits for medical supplies furnished to its assignor, plaintiff D.A.V. Chiropractic P.C. established a prima facie entitlement to summary judgment by proof that it submitted claims, setting forth the fact and the [*2]
amounts of the losses sustained, and that payment of no-fault benefits was overdue (see Insurance Law § 5106 [a]; Mary Immaculate Hosp. v Allstate Ins. Co., 5 AD3d 742 [2004]; A.B. Med. Servs. PLLC v Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co., 4 Misc 3d 86 [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2004]; Amaze Med. Supply v Eagle Ins. Co., 2 Misc 3d 128[A], 2003 NY Slip Op 51701[U] [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists]). Plaintiff, however, also submitted and relied upon defendant’s denial of claim forms which had unaffirmed peer reviews attached thereto. In opposition to the motion, defendant likewise relied upon said unaffirmed peer reviews which contained a sufficient factual basis and medical rationale so as to raise a triable issue of fact regarding medical necessity (see Pagano v Kingsbury, 182 AD2d 268 [1992]; Triboro Chiropractic & Acupuncture v Electric Ins. Co., 2 Misc 3d 135[A], 2004 NY Slip Op 50215[U] [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists]). Accordingly, plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment was properly denied.

Inasmuch as plaintiff Daniel Kim’s Acupuncture P.C. does not appear to be an aggrieved party, the appeal as taken by it is dismissed (CPLR 5511).
Decision Date: October 21, 2005

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

APPELLATE TERM: 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS

Appeal by defendant from an order of the District Court, Nassau County (S. Jaeger, J.), entered March 31, 2004, which granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and denied defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment, or in the alternative, for an order compelling discovery.

Order unanimously affirmed without costs.

In this action to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, plaintiff health care provider established its prima facie entitlement to summary judgment by proof that it submitted a statutory claim form setting forth the fact and amount of the loss sustained,
and that payment of no-fault benefits was overdue (see Insurance Law § 5106 [a]; Mary Immaculate Hosp. v Allstate Ins. Co., 5 AD3d 742 [2004]; Amaze Med. Supply v Eagle Ins. Co., 2 Misc 3d 128[A], 2003 NY Slip Op 51701[U] [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists]). The burden shifted to defendant to create a triable issue of fact (Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]). Defendant’s conceded failure to deny the claim (received September 12, 2002) until December 2, 2002, that is, well beyond the 30-day claim determination period, precluded most defenses unless defendant established a tolling of the statutory time (Hospital for Joint Diseases v ELRAC, Inc., 11 AD3d 432, 434 [2004]; New York & Presbyt. Hosp. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 5 AD3d 568, 570 [2004]).

All post-claim independent medical examination and examination under oath verification requests must be made within prescribed time frames (11 NYCRR 65-3.5 [a], [b], [d]; New York Hosp. Med. Ctr. of Queens v Country-Wide Ins. Co., 295 AD2d 583, 584-585 [2002]), and “[a]ny attempt by the insurer to deny the claim prior to exhausting the verification protocols is [*2]premature and of no effect” (King’s Med. Supply Inc. v Allstate Ins. Co., 7 Misc 3d 128[A], 2005 NY Slip Op 50451[U] [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists]; see also New York & Presbyt. Hosp. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 5 AD3d at 570 [2004]; King’s Med. Supply v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 5 Misc 3d 136[A], 2004 NY Slip Op 51550[U] [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists]). Neither of defendant’s initial examination requests were issued timely nor did they schedule the examination within the requisite 30-day period. Accordingly, defendant’s verification requests failed to toll the 30-day claim determination period.

As to the defense that the incident was staged to defraud, which defense survives the preclusion sanction (Matter of Metro Med. Diagnostics v Eagle Ins. Co., 293 AD2d 751 [2002]), as plaintiff properly argued below, none of defendant’s proof offered to establish the defense was submitted in admissible form. Defendant’s counsel alleged no basis to support an inference that the facts asserted in his statements were based on personal knowledge. Defendant’s “no-fault suit specialist” asserted merely the conclusory reference to “a possible staged fraudulent accident” based on unspecified “material misrepresentations made in the presentation of her claims,” an unsworn police accident report, and unsworn investigators’ reports, the latter of which concerned only alleged irregularities in the treatment and billing process, not the traffic incident, and thus, did not support a defense that survived the preclusion sanction (see Ocean Diagnostic Imaging P.C. v Prudential Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., ____ Misc 3d _____, 2005 NY Slip Op ____ [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists, February 17, 2005] [“Since defendant failed (timely to deny the claim) . . . it is precluded from raising
. . . its defense of provider fraud”]; Melbourne Med., P.C. v Utica Mut. Ins. Co., 4 Misc 3d 92 [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2004]). The adverse operator’s statements as recorded on the police accident report, plainly self-serving, hearsay statements, were inadmissible for the purpose offered (Hoffman v Eastern Long Is. Transp. Enter., 266 AD2d 509, 510 [1999]; see also Cover v Cohen, 61 NY2d 261, 274 [1984]; Wolf v We Transp., 274 AD2d 514 [2000]). Thus, defendant failed to establish a triable issue of fraud (see e.g. Ocean Diagnostic Imaging P.C. v Allstate Ins. Co., 6 Misc 3d 134[A], 2005 NY Slip Op 50189[U] [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists] [claims examiner’s conclusory assertions as to fraud insufficient]; Ocean Diagnostic Imaging, P.C. v Lancer Ins. Co., 6 Misc 3d 62 [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2004] [unsworn investigation reports inadmissible in opposition to summary judgment motion]; Melbourne Med. P.C. v Utica Mut. Ins. Co., 4 Misc 3d 92 [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2004] [attorney’s factual allegations, without personal knowledge of the investigation, mere unsubstantiated hearsay]; Dotzel v Allstate Ins. Co., 2003 NY Slip Op 50853[U] [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists] [unsworn investigation reports inadmissible in opposition to summary judgment motion]). [*3]

In light of the foregoing, defendant’s remaining contentions need not be addressed.
Decision Date: October 21, 2005

[*1]

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Department, October 21, 2005

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

Amos Weinberg, Great Neck, for appellants. Bruno Gerbino & Macchia LLP, Melville (Charles W. Benton of counsel), for respondent.

{**10 Misc 3d at 51} OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

Order insofar as appealed from modified by granting plaintiff A.B. Medical Services PLLC partial summary judgment in the sum of $6,765.47, plaintiff D.A.V. Chiropractic P.C. partial summary judgment in the sum of $593.94, and plaintiff Lvov Acupuncture P.C. partial summary judgment in the sum of $1,690.56, and as to those sums, the matter is remanded to the court below for a calculation of statutory interest and an assessment of attorney’s fees, and for all further proceedings on said plaintiffs’ remaining claims; as so modified, affirmed without costs.

Appeal insofar as taken by plaintiff Square Synagogue Transportation Inc. unanimously dismissed.

Plaintiffs A.B. Medical Services PLLC, D.A.V. Chiropractic P.C. and Lvov Acupuncture P.C. established their prima facie entitlement to summary judgment by proof that they submitted statutory claim forms, setting forth the fact and amount of the losses sustained, and that payment of no-fault benefits was overdue (see Insurance Law § 5106 [a]; Mary Immaculate Hosp. v Allstate Ins. Co., 5 AD3d 742 [2004]; Amaze Med. Supply v Eagle Ins. Co., 2 Misc 3d 128[A], 2003 NY Slip Op 51701[U] [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2003]). Upon such proof, the burden shifted to defendant to create a triable issue of fact (Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324[*2][1986]). Absent tolling of the statutory time (Hospital for Joint Diseases v ELRAC, Inc., 11 AD3d 432, 434 [2004]; New York & Presbyt. Hosp. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 5 AD3d 568, 570 [2004]), defendant’s conceded failure to deny the claims until December 2, 2002 violated the 30-day claim determination period and precluded it from interposing most defenses (aside from its claim that the incident was staged to defraud) as to all claims mailed on or before November 2, 2002.

As to the fraud defense, which survives the preclusion sanction (Matter of Metro Med. Diagnostics v Eagle Ins. Co., 293{**10 Misc 3d at 52} AD2d 751 [2002]), none of the proof offered to establish that the underlying incident was staged to defraud defendant was submitted in admissible form. None of the investigators’ reports or operators’ statements were sworn, defendant’s counsel alleged no basis to support an inference that any of the facts asserted in his statements were based on personal knowledge, and Tonya Miller, defendant’s claims representative, asserted in her affidavit merely the conclusory statement that “material misrepresentations [were] made in the presentation of the claim” and failed to adopt any of the factual assertions contained in the attached reports and statements. Thus, defendant failed to establish a triable issue of fraud (Ocean Diagnostic Imaging P.C. v Allstate Ins. Co., 6 Misc 3d 134[A], 2005 NY Slip Op 50189[U] [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2005]; Ocean Diagnostic Imaging, P.C. v Lancer Ins. Co., 6 Misc 3d 62 [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2004]; see e.g. Melbourne Med., P.C. v Utica Mut. Ins. Co., 4 Misc 3d 92 [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2004] [attorney’s factual allegations, without personal knowledge of the investigation, mere unsubstantiated hearsay]; Dotzel v Allstate Ins. Co., 2003 NY Slip Op 50853[U] [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2003]).

Similarly, defendant did not establish proper verification requests with respect to its letters which, inter alia, indicated that it intended to examine “claimants” under oath. An insurer

“may not rely on a letter, even if denominated a verification request, that merely informs a claimant that a decision on the claim is delayed pending an investigation, and without specifying a particular form of verification and the person or entity from whom the verification is sought, to toll the 30-day claim determination period” (Melbourne Med., P.C. v Utica Mut. Ins. Co., 4 Misc 3d at 94; see also A.B. Med. Servs. PLLC v Country-Wide Ins. Co., 6 Misc 3d 137[A], 2005 NY Slip Op 50255[U] [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2005]; Ocean Diagnostic Imaging P.C. v Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 4 Misc 3d 142[A], 2004 NY Slip Op 51041[U] [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2004]).

While the particular form of verification sought is stated, the persons sought to be examined are not identified, nor do the letters specify, inter alia, the time and place the examinations would take place (cf. 11 NYCRR 65-3.5 [d], [e]). As the instant letters do not conform to the requirements of a proper examination under oath verification request in substantial respects, the{**10 Misc 3d at 53} letters are ineffective to toll the 30-day claim determination period.

Therefore, defendant must first demonstrate a tolling via proof that one or more of the notice of physical examination letters of October 2, 2002 and the follow-up letters of October 29, 2002 issued, that assignor failed to appear, and that the timing of said notice(s) and nonappearance(s) established a defense to any or all claims. As the December 2, 2002 denial was timely as to the final four post-November 2, 2002 claims, namely, plaintiff A.B. Medical Services PLLC’s claims for $323.36 and $71.40, plaintiff D.A.V. Chiropractic P.C.’s claim for $168.50, [*3]and plaintiff Lvov Acupuncture P.C.’s claim for $425 defendant need only establish that the denial as to said four claims was based on a meritorious defense (cf. Amaze Med. Supply v Allstate Ins. Co., 3 Misc 3d 43, 44 [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2004] [“A timely denial alone does not avoid preclusion where said denial is factually insufficient, conclusory, vague or otherwise involves a defense which has no merit as a matter of law . . .”]). It is initially noted that defendant’s claim denial form, which invoked only the eligible injured person’s failure to attend independent medical examinations (IMEs) on October 25, 2002 and November 8, 2002, is materially defective on its face. “A proper denial of claim must include the information called for in the prescribed denial of claim form” (Nyack Hosp. v Metropolitan Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 16 AD3d 564 [2005] [“(A) denial of a claim form issued by (an insurer) . . . even if timely, (is) fatally defective (if) it omit(s) numerous items of requested information and thus (is) incomplete”]; see also 11 NYCRR 65-3.4 [c] [11]; Nyack Hosp. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 11 AD3d 664, 665 [2004] [the insurer’s “denial of claim, while timely, was nonetheless fatally defective in that it failed to include a number of basic items called for in the prescribed form,” citing Amaze Med. Supply v Allstate Ins. Co., 3 Misc 3d 43, 44 (2004), supra]; Presbyterian Hosp. in City of N.Y. v Maryland Cas. Co., 226 AD2d 613, 614 [1996] [preclusion sanction imposed where the insurer “fail(ed) to establish that it issued to the (claimant) a properly completed Denial of Claim Form within the (prescribed) 30-day period”]). Here, an accurate determination as to the significance of the IME demands for plaintiffs’ recovery of no-fault benefits depends on when defendant received each claim in the series, information which, in the first instance, is the insurer’s obligation to provide in a properly executed claim denial form. Moreover, as none of the six IME letters scheduled an examination for October 25, 2002, this verification request is unproved.{**10 Misc 3d at 54}

Nevertheless, in support of its motion, plaintiffs submitted a series of defendant’s IME request letters and a letter from counsel for plaintiff’s assignor to defendant wherein he admits that assignor failed to appear for IMEs on October 16, 18, and 19, 2002 and on November 8, 15, and 22, 2002. While defendant submitted no proof of mailing of any of the IME notification letters, plaintiffs’ concessions establish receipt of the November 8, 2002 IME request and assignor’s nonappearance, the only proved basis for the claims’ denial asserted in the claim denial form. The issue is whether defendant exhausted the verification protocols with respect to said IME request, and for that matter, the remaining IME requests which, while not invoked as a basis for the claims’ denial, are established on the instant record.

The insurance regulations permit preclaim IMEs, but without consequence for the running of the 30-day claim determination period (Stephen Fogel Psychological, P.C. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 7 Misc 3d 18 [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2004]). All postclaim IME verification requests must be made within prescribed time frames, the initial request within 10 days of the claim’s filing (to be scheduled within 30 days of the claim’s receipt) and a “follow-up” request within 10 days of a subject’s nonappearance at the initially-scheduled IME (11 NYCRR 65-3.5 [a], [d]; 65-3.6 [b]; New York Hosp. Med. Ctr. of Queens v Country-Wide Ins. Co., 295 AD2d 583, 584-585 [2002]). “Any attempt by the insurer to deny the claim prior to exhausting the verification protocols is premature and of no effect” (King’s Med. Supply Inc. v Allstate Ins. Co., 7 Misc 3d 128[A], 2005 NY Slip Op 50451[U], *2 [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2005]; see New York & Presbyt. Hosp. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 5 AD3d 568, 570[*4][2004]; King’s Med. Supply Inc. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 5 Misc 3d 136[A], 2004 NY Slip Op 51550[U] [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2004]). The request for the November 8, 2002 IME issued within 10 days only of plaintiff A.B. Medical Services PLLC’s claim for $71.06 and absent a follow-up IME request the claim determination period lapsed as to this claim. Further, said request predated receipt only of plaintiff A.B. Medical Services PLLC’s claims for $323.36 and $71.40, plaintiff Lvov Acupuncture P.C.’s claim for $425, and plaintiff D.A.V. Chiropractic P.C.’s claim for $168.50, and as an unattended preclaim IME, as to those claims, summary judgment was properly denied (cf. Stephen Fogel Psychological, P.C. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 7 Misc 3d 18 [2004], supra). In any event, there was no follow-up IME request after the assignor{**10 Misc 3d at 55} failed to appear on November 8, 2002, and the December 2, 2002 claim denial preserved no meritorious defense as to any claim filed prior to the November 8, 2002 IME demand (Amaze Med. Supply v Allstate Ins. Co., 3 Misc 3d at 44).

Plaintiff Square Synagogue Transportation Inc. concedes in appellants’ brief that it is not entitled to the relief sought upon the motion to the court below. Therefore, the appeal as taken by it is dismissed.

Accordingly, plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment is granted as to plaintiff A.B. Medical Services PLLC’s claims for $182.37, $230.10, $604.24, $751.83, $218.35, $360, $1,972.08, $1,999.12, $376.32, and $71.06, plaintiff D.A.V. Chiropractic, P.C.’s claim for $391.74 and $202.20, and plaintiff Lvov Acupuncture, P.C.’s claims for $1,180.56 and $510, and as to those sums, the matter remanded to the court below for a calculation of statutory interest and an assessment of attorney’s fees pursuant to Insurance Law § 5106 (a) and the regulations promulgated thereunder, and for all further proceedings on said plaintiffs’ remaining claims.

Golia, J., concurs in part and dissents in part, and votes to dismiss the appeal insofar as taken by Square Synagogue Transportation Inc. and to modify the order, insofar as appealed from, by denying the motion of plaintiffs A.B. Medical Services PLLC, D.A.V. Chiropractic P.C. and Lvov Acupuncture P.C. for summary judgment and, upon searching the record, granting defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as to said plaintiffs in the following memorandum: I concur with the majority in their dismissal of the appeal by Square Synagogue Transportation Inc.

However, contrary to the holding of the majority, I find that the papers submitted by the defendant in opposition to the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment were sufficient to raise an issue of fact as to whether the defense of fraud was based upon a “founded belief that the alleged injur[ies] do[ ] not arise out of an insured incident” (Central Gen. Hosp. v Chubb Group of Ins. Cos., 90 NY2d 195, 199 [1997]), i.e., as to whether it was a “staged” accident.

For the reasons stated in my dissent in Ocean Diagnostic Imaging, P.C. v Lancer Ins. Co. (6 Misc 3d 62 [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2004]), I find that the unsworn statements, when submitted in opposition to a motion for summary judgment and accompanied by an affidavit which makes reference to such reports, are sufficient for the purpose of raising a triable issue{**10 Misc 3d at 56} of fact (see also Levbarg v City of New York, 282 AD2d 239, 241 [2001]). This court must, when deciding a motion for summary judgment, interpret the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmovant (see Weiss v Garfield, 21 AD2d 156 [1964]). This is especially true where there [*5]is an allegation of fraud.

I further find that it is uncontroverted that the defendant insurer sent notices to the plaintiff’s assignor to appear for independent medical examinations (IMEs) on October 16, 18 and 19, 2002 and, upon her failure to appear, gave her an additional opportunity to appear on November 8, 15 and 22, 2002. We know this is true because the plaintiff submitted a letter written by the assignor’s attorney dated January 21, 2003 acknowledging receipt of those notices as well as acknowledging the fact that assignor, Ms. Abbott, did not appear. The letter goes on to state that Ms. Abbott is a single mother and requests, through her attorney, to have all her IMEs held in one location and on the same date which must be a Saturday. In support of this demand, Ms. Abbott’s attorney admonished the insurance carrier that “[t]he no-fault regulations clearly state that all medical examinations requested by the insurer shall be held at [a] time and place reasonably convenient to the applicant.”

It is interesting to note that one of the IMEs was scheduled for Saturday, October 19, 2002 and the assignor still failed to appear. It is even more interesting to note that her claimed medical treatments consisted of 12 separate dates including several visits in a single week and only one visit claimed fell on a Saturday, and that was for transportation unconnected to any claimed medical treatment.

It should be observed that the provision of the no-fault regulation addressed by the assignor’s attorney is 11 NYCRR 65-3.5 (e), which is part of the postclaim verification protocols.

As the majority of the appellate court stated in Stephen Fogel Psychological, P.C. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co. (7 Misc 3d 18, 20 [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2004]):

“The insurance regulations provide, in the mandatory personal injury protection endorsement, which is independent of the verification protocols, that ‘[t]he eligible injured person shall submit to medical examination . . . when, and as often as, the Company may reasonably require‘ (11 NYCRR 65-12 [e], now 11 NYCRR 65-1.1 [d]) . . . and because this provision is included in the mandatory endorsement and not in the verification protocols, there appears{**10 Misc 3d at 57} to be no reason to preclude an insurer” (emphasis added).

To be clear, I filed a dissenting opinion in Stephen Fogel Psychological, P.C. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co. (7 Misc 3d 18 [2004], supra) and do not agree with reading the no-fault regulations as a fragmented collection of rules and regulations. It is for this reason that I believe that both requirements should be read together. Therefore, all eligible injured persons must submit to medical examinations when and as often as the company may reasonably require, and the company shall hold such examinations at a place and time reasonably convenient to the eligible injured person. [*6]

In the matter at hand, I find that the “company” fully complied with the regulations. It was the plaintiff’s assignor who clearly and intentionally chose not to submit to any independent medical examinations. The letter from the assignor’s attorney sent only after she failed to appear at any of the first noticed three IMEs (one of which was a Saturday) or any of the second noticed IMEs was merely a “red herring” meant solely to excuse her failures and not to comply with the regulations. Specifically, she had found the time on Wednesday, September 10, 2002, to attend a consultation ($230.10) with Dr. Schwartz and submit to SSEP testing ($604.24) with the same doctor, undergo physical therapy ($751.83) with Dr. Pegarum, and be treated ($391.74) by Dr. Konn, a chiropractor, all on the same day. Then on the following day, Thursday, September 11, 2002, she underwent substantial acupuncture treatment ($1,180.56) and analysis with Dr. Yuen. Indeed, she went for treatment on 11 separate days during the middle of the week.

Clearly, if it was reasonable for the assignor to attend all of her scheduled medical treatments during the work week, it was certainly not unreasonably inconvenient for her to attend the scheduled or rescheduled IMEs.

Accordingly, I would modify the order of the lower court insofar as appealed from and deny the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment and, upon searching the record, I would dismiss the complaint for the reasons set forth in my dissent in the case of Stephen Fogel Psychological, P.C. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co. (7 Misc 3d 18 [2004], supra).

Pesce, P.J., and Patterson, J., concur; Golia, J., concurs in part and dissents in part in a separate memorandum.

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

APPELLATE TERM: 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS

Appeal from an order of the District Court of Nassau County, First District (Francis D. Ricigliano, J.), entered October 1, 2004. The order, insofar as appealed from, granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and denied defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment.

Order unanimously modified by denying plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment; as so modified, affirmed with $10 costs.

In this action to recover first-party no-fault benefits for medical services rendered to its assignor, plaintiff health care provider established its prima facie entitlement to summary judgment by proof that it submitted a claim, setting forth the fact and the
amount of the loss sustained, and that payment of no-fault benefits was overdue (see Insurance Law § 5106 [a]; Mary Immaculate Hosp. v Allstate Ins. Co., 5 AD3d 742 [2004]; Damadian MRI in Elmhurst v Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 2 Misc 3d 128[A], 2003 NY Slip Op 51700[U] [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists]). Inasmuch as defendant herein failed to pay or deny the claim within the 30-day prescribed period (11 NYCRR 65-3.8 [c]), it was precluded from raising most defenses (see Presbyterian Hosp. in City of N.Y. v Maryland Cas. Co., 90 NY2d 274, 282 [1997]). Defendant was not, however, precluded from asserting the defense that the collision was in furtherance of an insurance fraud scheme, despite the untimely denial of the claim (see Matter of Metro Med. Diagnostics v Eagle Ins. Co., 293 AD2d 751 [2002]). Contrary to the finding of the [*2]court below, the affidavit of defendant’s special investigator, which, inter alia, revealed numerous discrepancies in the examinations under oath of plaintiff’s assignor and defendant’s insured as to the circumstances surrounding the accident, was sufficient to demonstrate that said defense was based upon a “founded belief that the alleged injur[ies] do[] not arise out of an insured incident” (Central Gen. Hosp. v Chubb Group of Ins. Cos., 90 NY2d 195, 199 [1997]). Accordingly, since defendant raised a triable issue of fact as to whether there was a lack of coverage (see Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557 [1980]), the court below erred in granting plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment.
Decision Date: October 20, 2005

—[*1]

In a proceeding to stay an uninsured motorist arbitration, the petitioner appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Mullen, J.), dated December 20, 2004, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law and as a matter of discretion, with costs to the petitioner payable by Suffolk County Fleet Services, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, for a framed issue hearing in accordance herewith, and for a new determination of the petition thereafter.

As correctly conceded by the proposed additional respondent, Suffolk County Fleet Services (hereinafter Suffolk), a self-insured municipality is required to provide mandatory uninsured motorist benefits to employees who operate municipal motor vehicles (see Matter of State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v Amato, 72 NY2d 288, 293-294 [1988]; Matter of Country-Wide Ins. Co. [Manning], 96 AD2d 471 [1983], affd 62 NY2d 748 [1984]; see also Insurance Law § 3420 [f] [1]). Contrary to Suffolk’s contention, however, a statutory arbitration proceeding to resolve a coverage dispute concerning an uninsured motorist claim is not a claim founded upon a tort, requiring the service of a notice of claim as a condition precedent to the commencement of an action within the meaning of General Municipal Law § 50-e (1) (a) (see County Law § 52; General Municipal Law § 50-i; cf. Matter of City of Syracuse v Utica Mut. Ins. Co., 61 NY2d 691 [1984]; Matter of Manhattan & Bronx Surface Tr. Operating Auth. v Evans, 95 AD2d 470 [1983]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court erred in dismissing the petition for failure to comply with General Municipal Law § 50-e. Although the appellant’s contention that a notice of claim was not a condition precedent is raised for the first time on appeal, we nevertheless reach it as a matter of discretion since it involves a question of law that appears on the face of the record and, if brought to the attention of the Supreme Court, could not have been avoided (see Weiner v MKVII-Westchester, LLC, 292 AD2d 597, 598 [2002]).

Because the court never reached the issue we remit the matter to the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, for a framed issue hearing to determine whether Suffolk received notice given by or on behalf of the injured person as soon as was reasonably practicable (cf. 11 NYCRR 65.11 [m] [2]; Insurance Law § 3420 [a] [3] and [4]; Matter of Metropolitan Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v Mancuso, 93 NY2d 487 [1999]; Matter of State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. [Fuccio], 288 AD2d 46 [2001]).

The appellant’s remaining argument is academic in light of our determination. Florio, J.P., Crane, Fisher and Dillon, JJ., concur.

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

APPELLATE TERM: 2nd and 11th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Robin S. Garson, J.), entered August 18, 2004. The order, insofar as appealed from, granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in regard to causes of action relating to assignors Romana Hernandez and Jaime Diaz.

Order, insofar as appealed from, unanimously reversed without costs and plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment denied in causes of action relating to Romana Hernandez and Jaime Diaz.

In this action to recover first-party no-fault benefits for medical supplies rendered to their assignors, plaintiff established a prima facie entitlement to summary judgment with regard to the causes of action relating to assignors Romana Hernandez and Jaime Diaz by proof that it submitted claims, setting forth the fact and the amounts of the losses sustained, and that payment of no-fault benefits was overdue (see Insurance Law § 5106 [a]; Mary Immaculate Hosp. v Allstate Ins. Co., 5 AD3d 742 [2004]; Amaze Med. Supply v Eagle Ins. Co., 2 Misc 3d 128[A], 2003 NY Slip Op 51701[U] [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists]). Inasmuch as defendant failed to pay or deny the claims within the 30-day prescribed period (11 NYCRR 65-3.8 [c]), it was precluded from raising most defenses (see Presbyterian Hosp. in City of N.Y. v Maryland Cas. Co., 90 NY2d 274, 282 [1997]).

However, defendant was not precluded from asserting the defense that the various collisions were in furtherance of insurance fraud schemes, despite the untimely denials of the [*2]claims (see Matter of Metro Med. Diagnostics v Eagle Ins. Co., 293 AD2d 751 [2002]). The affidavit of defendant’s claims representative, that the insureds in both cases were involved in intentionally caused collisions, was sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the claims of assignors Hernandez and Diaz were [*3]
fraudulent (see A.B. Med. Servs. PLLC v Prudential Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 6 Misc 3d 130[A], 2005 NY Slip Op 50076[U] [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists]).
Decision Date: September 30, 2005

—[*1]

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 to vacate an arbitration award in favor of the City of Yonkers dated October 20, 2003, in the sum of $49,962.88, the appeal is from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Barone, J.), entered April 6, 2004, which granted the petition and vacated the award.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the petition is denied, the arbitration award is reinstated and confirmed, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Westchester County, for the entry of an appropriate judgment (see CPLR 7514 [a]).

On October 12, 2000, nonparty Richard Greco, an employee of the appellant City of Yonkers, sustained personal injuries, when, while crossing the street, he was struck by a motor vehicle owned by nonparty Keith Brunson. Brunson’s vehicle was insured by the petitioner, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (hereinafter State Farm). Greco was working at the time of the accident.

Greco filed a bodily injury claim with State Farm, Brunson’s insurer, to recover damages for the personal injuries he sustained in the accident. In February 2002 Greco’s claim was settled for $100,000, the policy limit for the Brunson vehicle. Greco executed a standard form release (hereinafter the general release) dated February 1, 2002, in favor of Brunson, inter alia, [*2]releasing him from liability for any and all claims arising out of the accident.

Meanwhile, the City paid Greco workers’ compensation benefits which totaled $49,962.88. Greco did not seek the City’s permission to settle the personal injury action until after he had settled the matter and signed the general release. The City consented to the settlement in April 2002 in a letter (hereinafter the consent letter) in which it reserved its “offset and credit rights against all retroactive, future, current and modified workers’ compensation benefits payable to Richard Greco based upon the net settlement value received” by him.

The City sought mandatory arbitration pursuant to Insurance Law § 5105 against State Farm for recoupment of the workers’ compensation benefits it paid to Greco, commonly referred to as a “loss transfer.” State Farm asserted two affirmative defenses: that the policy limits were exhausted and that the general release executed by Greco extinguished the City’s subrogation rights. It did not assert that the City’s consent to the settlement constituted a waiver of its loss transfer rights. The arbitrator found in favor of the City. State Farm commenced this proceeding to vacate the arbitrator’s award. The Supreme Court granted the petition and vacated the award on the ground, inter alia, that the arbitrator’s award made no mention of the general release. We reverse.

An arbitration award in a mandatory arbitration proceeding will be upheld if it is supported by the evidence and is not arbitrary and capricious (see Matter of Motor Veh. Acc. Indem. Corp. v Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 89 NY2d 214, 223 [1996]; Matter of Kemper Ins. Co. v Westport Ins. Co., 9 AD3d 431, 432 [2004]). On review, an award may be found to be rational if any basis for such a conclusion is apparent to the court based upon a reading of the record (see Caso v Coffey, 41 NY2d 153, 158 [1976], citing Matter of Pell v Board of Educ. of Union Free School Dist. No. 1 of Towns of Scarsdale & Mamaroneck, Westchester County, 34 NY2d 222, 231 [1974]; Dahan v Luchs, 92 AD2d 537, 538 [1983]).

Pursuant to Insurance Law § 5105, an insurer who pays out first-party benefits or workers’ compensation benefits in lieu thereof is afforded the mandatory intercompany arbitral process to recoup payment of those benefits through a loss transfer (see Doherty v Barco Auto Leasing Co., 144 AD2d 424, 426 [1988]). This mandatory arbitration provides the sole remedy for loss transfer (id.). An insurer does not lose its loss transfer rights as part of a personal injury settlement absent an “express waiver” of those rights (Allstate Ins. Co. v Manfredi Motor Tr. Co., 159 AD2d 969 [1990]; see Matter of Kemper Ins. Co. v Westport Ins. Co., supra; Doherty v Barco Auto Leasing Co., supra). In the case at bar, the City did not expressly waive its right to seek recovery of first-party benefits in intercompany arbitration, and the general release executed by its insured did not effect a waiver of its loss transfer rights. Thus, the arbitrator’s determination was supported by the evidence in the record (see Doherty v Barco Auto Leasing Co., supra; Allstate Ins. Co. v Manfredi Motor Tr. Co., supra), and was not arbitrary and capricious (see Matter of Motor Veh. Acc. Indem. Corp. v Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., supra).

The dissent does not dispute that the general release contains no explicit waiver of the City’s loss transfer rights. According to the dissent, however, the arbitrator failed to consider whether there was an explicit waiver of the right to loss transfer recovery, implying that the City’s consent letter constituted such a waiver. This issue was not before the arbitrator. The issue tendered to the arbitrator, as phrased by State Farm, was whether the general release extinguished the City’s claim, not whether the consent letter constituted an explicit waiver of the right to loss transfer. There is absolutely no evidence in the record to establish that the consent letter was submitted to the [*3]arbitrator for consideration on the issue of waiver. In fact, State Farm, the party who, according to the dissent, benefitted from this document, vigorously denied in the Supreme Court that it was submitted to the arbitrator. State Farm accused the City of submitting the consent letter to the Supreme Court for the first time. It criticized the City for failing to submit an affidavit by an individual with knowledge to establish that the consent letter had in fact been submitted in the arbitration. Thus, we are not, as the dissent states, deciding the issue de novo based upon an assumption of what evidence was before the arbitrator.

Even if the consent letter had been submitted to the arbitrator, it, like the general release, contains no explicit waiver of the City’s loss transfer rights. The mere fact that the City consented to the settlement is insufficient to constitute a waiver of its loss transfer rights. This point is made pellucidly clear by this Court’s holding in Doherty v Barco Auto Leasing Co. (supra). There, the plaintiff Andrew Doherty was involved in an accident while operating his employer’s truck. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company (hereinafter Liberty Mutual) insured Doherty’s employer against both workers’ compensation and automobile liability claims. State Farm Automobile Insurance Company (hereinafter State Farm Automobile) insured the vehicle owned by Barco Auto Leasing Co. Pursuant to its policies of insurance, Liberty Mutual paid Doherty’s workers’ compensation and no-fault benefits. Doherty commenced an action to recover damages for personal injuries. The action was settled with the participation of a supervisor at Liberty Mutual. Doherty stipulated, inter alia, “that there were no outstanding liens against his recovery and that all medical bills were paid to the no-fault and compensation carrier” (Doherty v Barco Auto Leasing Co., supra at 425).

Liberty Mutual thereafter placed into intercompany arbitration the loss transfer claims for no-fault and workers’ compensation benefits paid to Doherty. The arbitrator awarded Liberty Mutual 80% of its claims. State Farm Automobile commenced a CPLR article 75 proceeding to vacate the arbitration awards, and Liberty Mutual cross-moved for an order confirming the awards. The Supreme Court granted State Farm Automobile’s petition on the ground that the stipulation was binding upon Liberty Mutual, and that it had waived any “liens.” This Court reversed, holding that the stipulation of settlement did not expressly refer to Liberty Mutual’s right to loss transfer recovery, but only to outstanding liens (see Doherty v Barco Auto Leasing Co., supra at 425-426). “As a consequence, it [could] not be said that Liberty [Mutual] unequivocally waived its right to loss transfer recovery” (Doherty v Barco Auto Leasing Co., supra at 426, citing Matter of New Hampshire Ins. Co. [Utilities Mut. Ins. Co.], 134 AD2d 670 [1988]). The fact that Liberty Mutual participated in and explicitly consented to the settlement was of no relevance.

In the case at bar, there is evidentiary support in the record for the arbitrator’s award because the general release contains no express waiver of the City’s loss transfer rights (see Matter of Motor Veh. Acc. Indem. Corp. v Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., supra; Allstate Ins. Co. v Manfredi Motor Tr. Co., supra; Doherty v Barco Auto Leasing Co., supra). The outcome would not have been different even if, as the dissent suggests, the consent letter had been before the arbitrator since it too contains no express waiver of the City’s loss transfer rights.

Finally, the arbitrator complied with the applicable procedural requirements by including a brief statement of the basis for the finding (see 11 NYCRR 65.10 [d] [4] [vii]). The dissent simply disagrees with it.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have denied the petition and confirmed the arbitrator’s award in favor of the City (see CPLR 7511 [e]). Crane, J.P., Mastro and Spolzino, JJ., concur.

Goldstein, J., dissents and votes to affirm the order with the following memorandum in which Luciano, J., concurs: The instant case arises out of an accident involving a vehicle insured by the petitioner and Richard Greco, a pedestrian employed by the City of Yonkers who was crossing the street at the time of the accident. Richard Greco claimed and received workers’ compensation benefits. In February 2002 he settled his claim against the petitioner’s insured for $100,000, constituting the policy limits and signed a general release. On April 1, 2002, the City consented to the settlement of $100,000, reserving its “offset and credit rights” against “retroactive, future, current and modified Workers’ Compensation benefits payable to Richard Greco based upon the net settlement value.”

Thereafter, the City sought reimbursement from State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (hereinafter State Farm) pursuant to Insurance Law § 5105, which permits recoupment of payments of first-party benefits or payments made in lieu of first-party benefits if the requirements of Insurance Law § 5105 (a) are satisfied (see State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 132 AD2d 930 [1987], affd 71 NY2d 1013 [1988]). Recoupment pursuant to Insurance Law § 5105 is known as a “loss transfer recovery” (Doherty v Barco Auto Leasing Co., 144 AD2d 424, 426 [1988]).

In accordance with Insurance Law § 5105 (b) the controversy was submitted to mandatory arbitration. In the arbitration proceeding, State Farm asserted as affirmative defenses that its policy limits had been exhausted and a general release had been executed by Greco. A copy of the release was submitted with State Farm’s answer.

The arbitrator, after a hearing, awarded the City $49,962.88, stating that the “City of Yonkers proved liability against . . . State Farm for 100%” and “liability & claimed amount not at issue.” The arbitrator further stated that “bodily injury liability limit stretches to accommodate a basic PIP [personal injury protection] subro[gation] or worker’s comp loss transfer.”

State Farm commenced this proceeding to vacate the award. The petition was granted and the parties were directed to submit to a new arbitration hearing before a different arbitrator on the ground that “[t]he Arbitrator issued an incomprehensible two sentence decision which makes no mention of the legal issue of the general release entered into by Mr. Greco in favor of State Farm.”

Where, as here, the parties have submitted to compulsory arbitration, to be upheld, the award must have evidentiary support and cannot be arbitrary or capricious (see Mount St. Mary’s Hosp. of Niagara Falls v Catherwood, 26 NY2d 493 [1970]; Cigna Prop. & Cas. v Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 12 AD3d 198 [2004]). Further, pursuant to 11 NYCRR 65.10 (d) (4) (vii) (d) the arbitration award must be rendered in a written decision which states a “brief statement of the basis for the finding, such as lack of proof, contributing negligence, apportionment of negligence or other controlling principles of law.”

Greco claimed and received workers’ compensation benefits. As part of the [*4]settlement, a workers’ compensation carrier may explicitly waive its right to a credit or offset pursuant to Workers’ Compensation Law § 29 (4) (see Miszko v Gress, 4 AD3d 575 [2004]) its right to recovery of liens and its right to a loss transfer recovery (see Matter of Kemper Ins. Co. v Westport Ins. Co., 9 AD3d 431, 432 [2004]; Allstate Ins. Co. v Manfredi Motor Tr. Co., 159 AD2d 969 [1990]; Doherty v Barco Auto Leasing Co., supra).

In the instant case, Greco’s employer explicitly consented to the settlement. The issue before the arbitrator was whether there was an explicit waiver of the right to loss transfer recovery. This issue was apparently not considered by the arbitrator. The majority would confirm the award, based upon its own determination that the evidence in the record would permit a finding that there was no explicit waiver.

Since the controversy including State Farm’s affirmative defense “must, as a matter of [law], be arbitrated” (Matter of State Ins. Fund [Country-Wide Ins. Co.], 276 AD2d 432 [2000]), it is not the function of this Court to decide the issues de novo. The arbitrator’s decision did not comply with 11 NYCRR 65.10 since it did not state the basis for the arbitrator’s finding in comprehensible terms. Accordingly, the award was properly vacated as arbitrary and capricious.

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

APPELLATE TERM: 2nd and 11th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Manuel J. Mendez, J.), entered September 28, 2004. The order denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment.

Order unanimously reversed without costs, plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment granted and matter remanded to the court below for a calculation of statutory interest and an assessment of attorney’s fees.

In this action to recover first-party no-fault benefits for medical equipment furnished to its assignors, plaintiff established its entitlement to summary judgment by its proof that it submitted the functional equivalent of the statutory claim forms (11
NYCRR 65-3.5 [a], [f]), setting forth the fact and amounts of the losses sustained, and that payment of no-fault benefits was overdue (see Insurance Law § 5106 [a]; Mary Immaculate Hosp. v Allstate Ins. Co., 5 AD3d 742 [2004]; A.B. Med. Servs. PLLC v Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co., 4 Misc 3d 86 [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2004]). Defendant’s failure to pay or deny [*2]assignor Figueroa’s claim for $580 and assignor Rivera’s claims for $840 and $1,085 within the statutory 30-day claim determination period (11 NYCRR 65-3.8 [c]), or to prove a tolling of said period precluded the defenses set forth in the claim denial forms (Presbyterian Hosp. in City of N.Y. v Maryland Cas. Co., 90 NY2d 274, 282 [1997]; Triboro Chiropractic & Acupuncture PLLC v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 7 Misc 3d 138[A], 2005 NY Slip Op 50856[U] [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists]).

As for the defenses that survive the preclusion sanction, i.e., the alleged absence of an applicable policy and assignors’ fraudulent conduct with respect to the underlying traffic incidents (Matter of Metro Med. Diagnostics v Eagle Ins. Co., 293 AD2d 751 [2002]; Mount Sinai Hosp. v Triboro Coach, 263 AD2d 11, 18-19 [1999]), defendant failed to establish that triable issues exist as to either defense. Defendant’s claim that plaintiff did not prove that its assignors are covered by a policy issued by defendant is without merit as plaintiff’s claim forms established the matter prima facie and defendant offered no proof to the contrary. Further, absent proof sufficient to create a triable issue as to whether any of the traffic accidents were staged with the intent to defraud, defendant failed to prove that the defense was based on “a founded belief that the alleged injur[ies] do[] not arise out of an insured incident” (Central Gen. Hosp. v Chubb Group of Ins. Cos., 90 NY2d 195, 199 [1997]).

Defendant based its partial denials of most of the remaining claims on the improper ground that the sums sought for the items of medical equipment exceeded an alleged average of suppliers’ prevailing rates in plaintiff’s geographic location. The insurance regulations governing medical equipment and supplies applicable to the instant action limit a provider’s recovery of medical equipment benefits to 150 percent of cost (11 NYCRR Appendix 17-C, part E [b] [1]). This “applicable fee schedule” constitutes the only limitation on recovery and a defendant’s denial of benefits on the ground that the fees sought exceeded prevailing rates for such equipment in the provider’s geographical location has been rejected as without merit (Amaze Med. Supply v Allstate Ins. Co., 3 Misc 3d 43, 44 [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2004]; King’s Med. Supply v Allstate Ins. Co., 2 Misc 3d 127[A], 2003 NY Slip Op 51681[U] [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists]). It is noted that pursuant to the revised Insurance Department regulations regarding durable medical equipment and supplies, effective October 6, 2004 (see Circular Letter No. 8 [2004]; 11 NYCRR Appendix 17-C, part F, eff. October 6, 2004), the current fee schedule for medical equipment sets forth, as an alternative to the 150 percent limit, whichever is less, the “usual and customary price charged to the general public” (11 NYCRR Appendix 17-C, part F [a] [2]).

As to the defense based on defective assignments, defendant’s failure to seek verification of the assignments or to allege any deficiency in the assignments in its claim denial forms “constitutes a waiver of any defenses with respect [to them]” (Ocean Diagnostic Imaging P.C. v Travelers Prop. Cas. Corp., 7 Misc 3d 137[A], 2005 NY Slip Op 50790[U] [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists]; see also New York Hosp. Med. Ctr. of Queens v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 8 AD3d 640 [2004]; Capio Med., P.C. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 7 Misc 3d 129[A], 2005 NY Slip Op 50526[U] [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists]). Defendant’s further claim that plaintiff cannot establish a prima facie case for the delivery of equipment to the assignors because its manager-affiant did not personally supply the equipment or witness the equipments’ “turnover” is also without merit. The affidavit of plaintiff’s officer and billing manager sufficiently “[s]et forth [*3][his] duties so as to support the conclusion that the attached exhibits were sufficiently accurate and trustworthy to merit their admission into evidence pursuant to the business record exception to the hearsay rule (see CPLR 4518 [a]; People v Kennedy, 68 NY2d 569 [1986]), and said exhibits established that the supplies were furnished to the assignor” (King’s Med. Supply, Inc. v Hereford Ins. Co., 5 Misc 3d 55, 56 [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2004]; see also Ocean Diagnostic Imaging P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 4 Misc 3d 141[A], 2004 NY Slip Op 51032[U] [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists]).

We have considered the remaining defenses and find them to be similarly without merit (see Nyack Hosp. v Metropolitan Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 16 AD3d 564, 565 [2005]; New York Hosp. Med. Ctr. of Queens v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 8 AD3d 640, supra; Careplus Med. Supply Inc. v Travelers Home and Mar. Ins. Co., 7 Misc 3d 133[A], 2005 NY Slip Op 50648[U] [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists]).

Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is granted and the matter remanded to the court below for a calculation of statutory interest and an assessment of attorney’s fees pursuant to Insurance Law § 5106 (a) and the regulations promulgated thereunder.
Decision Date: September 20, 2005

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

APPELLATE TERM: 2nd and 11th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Eileen Nadelson, J.), entered October 8, 2004. The order denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment.

Order unanimously reversed without costs, plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment granted and matter remanded to the court below for a calculation of statutory interest and an assessment of attorney’s fees.

In this action to recover first-party no-fault benefits for medical equipment furnished to its assignors, plaintiff established its entitlement to summary judgment by its proof that it submitted the functional equivalent of the statutory claim forms (11 NYCRR 65-3.5 [a], [f]), setting forth the fact and amounts of the losses sustained, and that payment of no-fault benefits was overdue (see Insurance Law § 5106 [a]; Mary Immaculate Hosp. v Allstate Ins. Co., 5 AD3d 742 [2004]; A.B. Med. Servs. PLLC v Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co., 4 Misc 3d 86 [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2004]). Defendant’s claim that plaintiff failed to prove that its assignors are covered by a policy issued by defendant is without merit as plaintiff’s claim forms established the matter prima facie and defendant offered no proof to the contrary. The burden then shifted to [*2]defendant to raise a triable issue of material fact (Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]). In our view, defendant failed to establish any basis for the motion’s denial.

Defendant based its partial denials of the claims on the improper ground that the sums sought for the items of medical equipment exceeded an alleged average of suppliers’ prevailing rates in plaintiff’s geographic location. The insurance regulations governing medical equipment and supplies applicable to the instant action limit a provider’s recovery of medical equipment benefits to 150 percent of cost (11 NYCRR Appendix 17-C, part E [b] [1]). This “applicable fee schedule” constitutes the only
limitation on recovery and a defendant’s denial of benefits on the ground that the fees sought exceeded prevailing rates for such equipment in the provider’s geographical location has been rejected as without merit (Amaze Med. Supply v Allstate Ins. Co., 3 Misc 3d 43, 44 [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2004]; King’s Med. Supply v Allstate Ins. Co., 2 Misc 3d 127[A], 2003 NY Slip Op 51681[U] [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists]). It is noted that pursuant to the revised Insurance Department regulations regarding durable medical equipment and supplies, effective October 6, 2004 (see Circular Letter No. 8 [2004]; 11 NYCRR Appendix 17-C, part F, eff. October 6, 2004), the current fee schedule for medical equipment sets forth, as an alternative to the 150 percent limit, whichever is less, the “usual and customary price charged to the general public” (11 NYCRR Appendix 17-C, part F [a] [2]).

As to the defense based on defective assignments, defendant’s failure to seek verification of the assignments or to allege any deficiency in the assignments in its claim denial forms “constitutes a waiver of any defenses with respect [to them]” (Ocean Diagnostic Imaging P.C. v Travelers Prop. Cas. Corp., 7 Misc 3d 137[A], 2005 NY Slip Op 50790[U] [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists]; see also New York Hosp. Med. Ctr. of
Queens v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 8 AD3d 640 [2004]; Capio Med., P.C. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 7 Misc 3d 129[A], 2005 NY Slip Op 50526[U] [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists]). Defendant’s further claim that plaintiff cannot establish a prima facie case for the delivery of equipment to the assignors because its manager-affiant did not personally supply the equipment or witness the equipments’ “turnover” is also without merit. The affidavit of plaintiff’s officer and billing manager sufficiently “[s]et forth [his] duties so as to support the conclusion that the attached exhibits were sufficiently accurate and trustworthy to merit their admission into evidence pursuant to the business record exception to the hearsay rule (see CPLR 4518 [a]; People v Kennedy, 68 NY2d 569 [1986]), and said exhibits established that the supplies were furnished to the assignor” (King’s Med. Supply, Inc. v Hereford Ins. Co., 5 Misc 3d 55, 56 [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2004]; see also Ocean Diagnostic Imaging P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 4 Misc 3d 141[A], 2004 NY Slip Op 51032[U] [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists]).

We have considered the remaining defenses and find them to be similarly without merit (see Nyack Hosp. v Metropolitan Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 16 AD3d 564, 565 [2005]; New York Hosp. Med. Ctr. of Queens v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 8 AD3d 640, supra; Careplus Med. Supply Inc. v Travelers Home and Mar. Ins. Co., 7 Misc 3d 133[A], 2005 NY Slip Op 50648[U] [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists]). [*3]

Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is granted and the matter remanded to the court below for a calculation of statutory interest and an assessment of attorney’s fees pursuant to Insurance Law § 5106 (a) and the regulations promulgated thereunder.
Decision Date: September 20, 2005