Goldberg Miller & Rubin (Harlan R. Schreiber of counsel), for appellant. The Rybak Firm, PLLC (Karina Barska of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal from a judgment of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Robin Kelly Sheares, J.), entered October 31, 2017. The judgment, entered pursuant to an order of that court entered August 2, 2017 granting plaintiff’s motion for the entry of a default judgment and denying defendant’s cross motion to dismiss the action, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $1,511.04.

ORDERED that, on the court’s own motion, the notice of appeal from the order dated August 2, 2017 is deemed a premature notice of appeal from the judgment entered October 31, 2017 (see CPLR 5520 [c]); and it is further,

ORDERED that the judgment is reversed, with $30 costs, the order dated August 2, 2017 is vacated, plaintiff’s motion for the entry of a default judgment is denied, defendant’s cross motion to dismiss the action is granted, and the matter is remitted to the Civil Court for the entry of a judgment in favor of defendant dismissing the action without prejudice.

In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, the affidavit of service alleges that the summons and complaint were served by mail pursuant to CPLR 312-a. In support of plaintiff’s motion for the entry of a default judgment, its counsel stated that [*2]defendant’s time to answer had expired. However, plaintiff’s papers do not contain an acknowledgment of service. Defendant cross-moved to dismiss the action on the ground that plaintiff had failed to serve a summons and complaint within 120 days of the commencement of the action (see CCA 411). By order entered August 2, 2017, the Civil Court granted plaintiff’s motion and denied defendant’s cross motion. Defendant appeals from the order. A judgment was subsequently entered on October 31, 2017 awarding plaintiff the principal sum of $1,511.04. We deem defendant’s notice of appeal from the order to be a premature notice of appeal from the judgment (see CPLR 5520 [c]).

Proof that a defendant was properly served with process is a prerequisite to the entry of a default judgment against that defendant (see CPLR 3215 [f]; Cordero v Barreiro-Cordero, 129 AD3d 899 [2015]). “Service of the summons [is] complete . . . in the case of service pursuant to CPLR 312-a, by filing the acknowledgment of receipt, which constitutes proof of service (CPLR 312-a [b] [1]; 306 [d])” (Richard A. Hellander, M.D., P.C. v Metlife Auto & Home Ins. Co., 48 Misc 3d 59, 61-62 [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2015] [internal quotation marks omitted]). Here, the record fails to demonstrate that an acknowledgment of receipt was subscribed and affirmed as true under penalty of perjury by defendant (see CPLR 312-a [c]) and returned to plaintiff. Since plaintiff did not attempt another manner of service, plaintiff failed to acquire personal jurisdiction over defendant (see CPLR 312-a [e]; Klein v Educational Loan Servicing, LLC, 71 AD3d 957 [2010]; Dominguez v Stimpson Mfg. Corp.,207 AD2d 375 [1994]; Gateway Med., P.C. v Progressive Ins. Co., 30 Misc 3d 144[A], 2011 NY Slip Op 50336[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2011]), and defendant’s cross motion to dismiss the action is granted (see CCA 411).

Accordingly, the judgment is reversed, the order entered August 2, 2017 is vacated, plaintiff’s motion for the entry of a default judgment is denied, defendant’s cross motion to dismiss the action is granted, and the matter is remitted to the Civil Court for the entry of a judgment in favor of defendant dismissing the action without prejudice.

SIEGAL, J.P., PESCE and ELLIOT, JJ., concur.

Robyn M. Brilliant, P.C. (Robyn M. Brilliant of counsel), for appellant. Zara Javakov, P.C. (Zara Javakov of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Robin Kelly Sheares, J.), entered June 2, 2017. The order, insofar as appealed from, denied the branch of defendant’s motion seeking summary judgment dismissing so much of the complaint as sought to recover upon claims as assignee of Rhonda Cobin and granted the branch of plaintiff’s cross motion seeking summary judgment on that portion of the complaint.

ORDERED that the order, insofar as appealed from, is modified by providing that the branch of plaintiff’s cross motion seeking summary judgment on so much of the complaint as sought to recover upon claims as assignee of Rhonda Cobin 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, defendant appeals from so much of an order of the Civil Court as denied the branch of defendant’s motion seeking summary judgment dismissing so much of the complaint as sought to recover upon claims as assignee of Rhonda Cobin and granted the branch of plaintiff’s cross motion seeking summary judgment on that portion of the complaint. Contrary to the determination of the Civil Court, the proof submitted by defendant was sufficient to establish the proper mailing of the examination under oath (EUO) scheduling letters sent to Cobin (see St. Vincent’s Hosp. of [*2]Richmond v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 50 AD3d 1123 [2008]). However, the affidavit of defense counsel’s legal assistant failed to establish that he possessed personal knowledge that Cobin had not appeared for the EUOs (see Stephen Fogel Psychological, P.C. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 35 AD3d 720 [2006]). Consequently, defendant failed to make a prima facie showing that it was entitled to summary judgment dismissing the claims submitted by plaintiff as assignee of Cobin. We note that the Civil Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in considering the papers submitted by plaintiff in opposition to defendant’s motion, even though the opposition papers had been untimely served pursuant to the parties’ stipulation, as defendant was able to submit reply papers (see Hsu v Shields, 111 AD3d 674 [2013]; Kavakis v Total Care Sys., 209 AD2d 480 [1994]).

Plaintiff failed to demonstrate its prima facie entitlement to summary judgment, as the affidavit of plaintiff’s owner submitted in support of its cross motion failed to establish that the claims at issue had not been timely denied (see Viviane Etienne Med. Care, P.C. v Country-Wide Ins. Co., 25 NY3d 498 [2015]), or that defendant had issued timely denial of claim forms that were conclusory, vague or without merit as a matter of law (see Insurance Law § 5106 [a]; Westchester Med. Ctr. v Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 78 AD3d 1168 [2010]; 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, insofar as appealed from, is modified by providing that the branch of plaintiff’s cross motion seeking summary judgment on so much of the complaint as sought to recover upon claims as assignee of Rhonda Cobin is denied.

PESCE, P.J., ALIOTTA and ELLIOT, JJ., concur.

Decided on June 7, 2019

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

Glinkenhouse, Floumanhaft & Queen (Stephen J. Green of counsel), for appellant. Peter C. Merani, P.C. (Samuel Kamara of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal, on the ground of inadequacy, from a judgment of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Larry Love, J.), entered August 15, 2017. The judgment, entered pursuant to so much of a May 12, 2017 order of that court as granted the branch of a cross motion by defendant seeking to stay the accrual of no-fault statutory interest “between date of settlement and date of judgment,” awarded plaintiff interest only from August 23, 2016.

ORDERED that, on the court’s own motion, the notice of appeal from so much of the order entered May 12, 2017 as granted the branch of defendant’s cross motion seeking to stay the accrual of no-fault statutory interest “between date of settlement and date of judgment” is deemed a premature notice of appeal, on the ground of inadequacy, from the judgment (see CPLR 5520 [c]); and it is further,

ORDERED that the judgment is reversed, with $30 costs, so much of the order entered May 12, 2017 as granted the branch of defendant’s cross motion seeking to stay the accrual of no-fault statutory interest “between date of settlement and date of judgment” is vacated, that branch of defendant’s cross motion is denied, and the matter is remitted to the Civil Court for the entry of a new judgment in accordance with this decision and order.

This action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits was settled in open court on August 2, 2007. Defendant did not pay the settlement amount, and a judgment was subsequently entered on June 21, 2016, pursuant to CPLR 5003-a. Plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Civil Court entered May 12, 2017 as granted the branch of a cross motion by defendant seeking to stay the accrual of no-fault statutory interest “between date of settlement and date of judgment” by providing that such interest would be tolled until August 23, 2016, the date of the filing of a motion by plaintiff to recalculate the interest. We deem plaintiff’s notice of appeal from that part of the order to be a premature notice of appeal, on the ground of inadequacy, from the subsequently entered judgment (see CPLR 5520 [c]).

Plaintiff correctly argues that the Civil Court erred in staying interest from the date of the settlement of the action to August 23, 2016. Once the case settled, defendant was obligated to pay the agreed-upon amount to plaintiff (see CPLR 5003-a) and “plaintiff, as the prevailing party, was not required to make a demand for the money” (B.Z. Chiropractic, P.C. v Allstate Ins. Co., 56 Misc 3d 139[A], 2017 NY Slip Op 51091[U], *2 [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2017]; see CPLR 5003-a [e]). Defendant did not demonstrate that plaintiff had prevented defendant in any way from paying the settlement amount (see ERHAL Holding Corp. v Rusin, 252 AD2d 473, 474 [1998]; Juracka v Ferrara, 120 AD2d 822 [1986]; Craniofacial Pain Mgt. v Allstate Ins. Co., 61 Misc 3d 155[A], 2018 NY Slip Op 51825[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2018]; B.Z. Chiropractic, P.C., 56 Misc 3d 139[A], 2017 NY Slip Op 51091[U]). Therefore, the Civil Court erred in tolling the accrual of interest (see Craniofacial Pain Mgt., 61 Misc 3d 155[A], 2018 NY Slip Op 51825[U]; B.Z. Chiropractic, P.C., 56 Misc 3d 139[A], 2017 NY Slip Op 51091[U]).

Accordingly, the judgment is reversed, so much of the order entered May 12, 2017 as granted the branch of defendant’s cross motion seeking to stay the accrual of no-fault statutory interest “between date of settlement and date of judgment” is vacated, that branch of defendant’s cross motion is denied, and the matter is remitted to the Civil Court for the entry of a new judgment in accordance with this decision and order.

SIEGAL, J.P., PESCE and ELLIOT, JJ., concur.

[*1]

The Law Office of Jason Tenenbaum, P.C., Garden City, NY (Roman Kravchenko of counsel), for appellant.

Samandarov & Associates, P.C., Floral Park, NY (Eli Shmulik of counsel), for respondent.

In an action for a judgment declaring that the plaintiff is not obligated to pay certain no-fault insurance benefits, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (George R. Peck, J.), entered January 18, 2018. The order granted the defendant’s motion pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a) (1) to vacate its default in answering the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

In December 2016, the plaintiff, a no-fault insurance carrier, commenced this action pursuant to Insurance Law § 5106 (c) for a de novo adjudication of a dispute regarding its denial of the defendant’s claim for no-fault insurance benefits for medical services rendered to its assignor. Prior thereto, an arbitrator had determined that the defendant was entitled to no-fault compensation in the amount of $6,759.16, plus interest and attorney’s fees. The plaintiff appealed the award to a master arbitrator, who affirmed the award.

After the defendant failed to timely appear or answer the complaint in this action, the plaintiff moved for leave to enter a default judgment. In an order entered March 13, 2017, the Supreme Court granted the plaintiff’s unopposed motion for leave to enter a default judgment. The court subsequently issued a default judgment dated July 31, 2017.

Thereafter, in September 2017, the defendant moved pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a) (1) to vacate its default. The Supreme Court granted the motion, and the plaintiff appeals.

A defendant seeking to vacate its default pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a) (1) on the ground of excusable default must demonstrate a reasonable excuse for the default and a potentially meritorious defense to the action (see CPLR 5015 [a] [1]; Allstate Ins. Co. v North Shore Univ. Hosp., 163 AD3d 745, 746 [2018]). Here, the defendant demonstrated a reasonable excuse for its default (see Allstate Ins. Co. v North Shore Univ. Hosp., 163 AD3d at 746). Moreover, although certain of the evidence submitted by the defendant to demonstrate a potentially meritorious defense was not in admissible form (see generally OneWest Bank, FSB v Singer, 153 AD3d 714, 715-716 [2017]; King v King, 99 AD3d 672, 673 [2012]), the defendant demonstrated a potentially meritorious defense to the action by attaching to its moving papers copies of the arbitration award in which the arbitrator determined that the defendant was entitled to no-fault compensation in the amount of $6,759.16, plus interest and attorney’s fees, as well as copies of arbitration materials reflecting that the plaintiff had appealed the award to a master arbitrator, who affirmed the award. In light of the defendant setting forth evidence that it had previously prevailed before an arbitrator on the merits of its defense, the defendant demonstrated a potentially meritorious defense to the action (see Rosenzweig v Gubner, 2018 NY Slip Op 32393[U], *7-8 [Sup Ct, Kings County 2018]; Matter of Charny [Gliksman], 2002 NY Slip Op 40004[U], *11 [Sup Ct, Kings County 2002]; see generally Bevona v Blue Star Realty Corp., 264 AD2d 586, 587 [1999]; Lawyers Coop. Publ. v Scott, 255 AD2d 952, 952 [1998]; Simpson v Mal Serv. Corp., 205 AD2d 419, 419 [1994]). Accordingly, we agree with the Supreme Court’s determination to grant the defendant’s motion pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a) (1) to vacate its default in answering the complaint.

The plaintiff’s remaining contentions are without merit. Scheinkman, P.J., Dillon, Maltese and LaSalle, JJ., concur.

Law Office of Goldstein & Flecker (Lawrence J. Chanice of counsel), for appellant. Zara Javakov, P.C. (Zara Javakov of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Mary V. Rosado, J.), dated February 7, 2017. The order, insofar as appealed from, denied defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3216.

ORDERED that the order, insofar as appealed from, is reversed, with $30 costs, and defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3216 is granted.

Plaintiff commenced this action to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits on May 10, 2011. Defendant interposed an answer on June 29, 2011. On August 6, 2015, defendant served plaintiff’s attorney with a 90-day written demand pursuant to CPLR 3216 (b) (3), which was received on August 10, 2015. By notice of motion dated March 11, 2016, defendant moved, pursuant to CPLR 3216, to dismiss the complaint on the ground that defendant had not been served with a notice of trial. In opposition to the motion, plaintiff stated that it had filed a notice of trial on November 23, 2016. It further argued that law office failure was the reason for the delay and that it had a meritorious cause of action. By order dated February 7, 2017, insofar as is relevant to this appeal, the Civil Court denied defendant’s motion, finding that plaintiff had established a “reasonable excuse” for its delay and a meritorious “defense” [sic].

Upon receiving a 90-day demand, a plaintiff must either comply with the demand by filing a notice of trial within 90 days thereafter (see CPLR 3216 [b] [3]; [c]) or move before the default date either to vacate the demand or to extend the 90-day period pursuant to CPLR 2004 (see Felix v County of Nassau, 52 AD3d 653 [2008]; Katina, Inc. v Town of Hempstead, 13 AD3d 343 [2004]; A.M. Med., P.C. v State Farm Mut. Ins. Co., 22 Misc 3d 43 [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2008]). Here, since plaintiff filed a notice of trial more than 90 days after its receipt of the 90-day demand and had not moved prior thereto to vacate the demand or to extend the 90-day period, it was required, in opposition to defendant’s motion to dismiss, to establish both a justifiable excuse for its delay and the existence of a meritorious cause of action (see CPLR 3216 [e]; Baczkowski v Collins Constr. Co., 89 NY2d 499 [1997]; Felix, 52 AD3d 653; A.M. Med., P.C., 22 Misc 3d 43). While a court, in its discretion, may accept a claim of law office failure as an excuse (see CPLR 2005), here, the affirmation submitted by plaintiff’s attorney in opposition to defendant’s motion did not provide a detailed and credible explanation of the law office failure that had caused the delay (see Premier Surgical Servs., P.C. v Allstate Ins. Co., 58 Misc 3d 160[A], 2018 NY Slip Op 50273[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2018]; Bayshore Chiropractic, P.C. v Allstate Ins. Co., 56 Misc 3d 141[A], 2017 NY Slip Op 51121[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2017]; Comeau v McClacken, 5 Misc 3d 134[A], 2004 NY Slip Op 51455[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2004]). Consequently, plaintiff’s claim of law office failure did not rise to the level of a justifiable excuse. In view of the foregoing, it is unnecessary to consider whether plaintiff demonstrated the existence of a meritorious cause of action (see generally Levi v Levi, 46 AD3d 519 [2007]; Premier Surgical Servs., P.C., 58 Misc 3d 160[A], 2018 NY Slip Op 50273[U]).

Accordingly, the order, insofar as appealed from, is reversed and defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3216 is granted.

WESTON, J.P., PESCE and SIEGAL, JJ., concur.

Law Offices of Buratti, Rothenberg & Burns (Leslie A. Emya, Jr. of counsel), for appellant. Gary Tsirelman, P.C., for respondent (no brief filed).

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Robin S. Garson, J.), entered October 27, 2015. The order denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

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 moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that plaintiff’s assignor had failed to appear for scheduled independent medical examinations (IMEs). In support of the motion, defendant submitted an affidavit by an employee of the company which had been retained by defendant to schedule the IMEs, which affidavit sufficiently demonstrated that the scheduling letters had been timely mailed to plaintiff’s assignor on August 19, 2011 and September 1, 2011, at a Van Siclen Avenue address (see St. Vincent’s Hosp. of Richmond v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 50 AD3d 1123 [2008]). Defendant also submitted affirmations and affidavits from medical providers who were to perform the IMEs, which sufficiently established that plaintiff’s assignor had failed to appear for those duly scheduled IMEs (see Stephen Fogel [*2]Psychological, P.C. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 35 AD3d 720 [2006]). In addition, an affidavit executed by defendant’s claims representative demonstrated that the denial of claim forms, which denied the claims based on plaintiff’s assignor’s nonappearance at the IMEs, had been timely mailed (see St. Vincent’s Hosp. of Richmond, 50 AD3d 1123).

In opposition, plaintiff’s counsel argued that the IME scheduling letters had been mailed to the wrong address because plaintiff’s bills, which were annexed to defendant’s moving papers, and the earliest of which was dated October 18, 2011, stated that plaintiff’s assignor’s address was on Chester Street. In reply, defendant submitted a copy of the NF-2 which was sworn to on July 29, 2011, and the police report from the July 17, 2011 accident. Both the police report and the sworn NF-2 stated that the assignor’s address was on Van Siclen Avenue. The Civil Court denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, holding that plaintiff’s claims forms which were annexed to defendant’s moving papers raised an issue of fact as to the mailing of the IME scheduling letters and that defendant could not cure the defect in reply.

While a party moving for summary judgment generally cannot meet its prima facie burden by submitting evidence for the first time in reply, there is an exception to this general rule where, as here, the evidence is submitted in response to allegations raised for the first time in the opposition papers (see Central Mtge. Co. v Jahnsen, 150 AD3d 661 [2017]; Conte v Frelen Assoc., LLC, 51 AD3d 620 [2008]). As a result, the Civil Court erred when it held that the NF-2 and police report annexed to defendant’s reply papers could not be considered in support of defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Those documents established that, at the time the IME letters had been mailed to plaintiff’s assignor, the letters had been mailed to the assignor’s address as set forth in the sworn NF-2 and the police report, which was the only address known to defendant at that time.

Since defendant demonstrated that plaintiff’s assignor had failed to comply with a condition precedent to coverage (see 11 NYCRR 65-1.1; Stephen Fogel Psychological, P.C., 35 AD3d at 722) and that defendant had timely denied (see St. Vincent’s Hosp. of Richmond, 50 AD3d 1123) the claim on that ground, the Civil Court should have granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment.

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

PESCE, P.J., ALIOTTA and ELLIOT, JJ., concur.

[*1]

Peter C. Merani, P.C., New York, NY (Eric M. Wahrburg of counsel), for appellant.

In an action pursuant to Insurance Law § 5106 (c) for a de novo determination of claims for no-fault insurance benefits, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Robert A. Bruno, J.), dated December 9, 2016. The order denied the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on the complaint and, upon searching the record, awarded summary judgment to the defendant.

Ordered that the order is modified, on the law, (1) by deleting the provision thereof denying that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was for summary judgment on so much of the complaint as, in effect, sought a determination that the amount of no-fault insurance benefits sought by the defendant was not in accordance with the workers’ compensation fee schedule, and substituting therefor a provision granting that branch of the motion, and (2) by deleting the provision thereof searching the record and awarding summary judgment to the defendant; as so modified, the order is affirmed, with costs payable to the plaintiff.

This action pursuant to Insurance Law § 5106 (c) arises from a motor vehicle accident that occurred on February 6, 2013. Christopher Krull allegedly was injured in the accident, and he underwent spinal fusion surgery performed by P. Jeffrey Lewis of the defendant, Buffalo Neurosurgery Group. The defendant, as assignee of Krull, submitted a claim to the plaintiff insurer for no-fault insurance benefits for the surgery and related care. The plaintiff denied the claim. The defendant submitted the matter to arbitration. The arbitrator determined that the defendant was entitled to no-fault compensation in the principal sum of $11,352.46, plus interest and attorney’s fees. The plaintiff appealed the award to a master arbitrator, who affirmed the award.

On August 19, 2015, the plaintiff commenced this action pursuant to Insurance Law § 5106 (c) for a de novo determination of the defendant’s claims for no-fault insurance benefits. The plaintiff then moved for summary judgment on the complaint. In an order dated December 9, 2016, the Supreme Court denied the motion and, upon searching the record, awarded summary judgment to the defendant, concluding that the master arbitrator had properly affirmed the award of benefits to the defendant in the principal sum of $11,352.46, plus interest and attorney’s fees. The plaintiff appeals.

Insurance Law § 5106 (c) permits a de novo adjudication of a no-fault insurance claim where the master arbitrator’s award is $5,000 or greater, exclusive of interest and attorney’s fees (see 11 NYCRR 65-4.10 [h] [1] [ii]; Matter of Greenberg [Ryder Truck Rental], 70 NY2d 573, 577 [1987]). Here, we agree with the Supreme Court’s denial of that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was for summary judgment on so much of the complaint as, in effect, sought a determination that it was not obligated to pay the defendant no-fault benefits relating to Krull’s surgery, since the surgery was not medically necessary. The peer review reports submitted in support of that branch of the motion failed to demonstrate, prima facie, that the surgery performed on Krull was not medically necessary (see Global Liberty Ins. Co. v W. Joseph Gorum, M.D., P.C., 143 AD3d 768 [2016]; Amherst Med. Supply, LLC v A. Cent. Ins. Co., 41 Misc 3d 133[A], 2013 NY Slip Op 51800[U] [App Term, 1st Dept 2013]; cf. AutoOne Ins./Gen. Assur. v Eastern Is. Med. Care, P.C., 136 AD3d 722 [2016]; Cortland Med. Supply, Inc. v 21st Century Centennial Ins. Co., 46 Misc 3d 136[A], 2014 NY Slip Op 51886[U] [App Term, 1st Dept 2014]). In light of the plaintiff’s failure to meet its prima facie burden, we need not consider the sufficiency of the opposing papers on that issue (see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853 [1985]; Global Liberty Ins. Co. v W. Joseph Gorum, M.D., P.C., 143 AD3d at 770).

We agree with the Supreme Court’s determination that the plaintiff established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on that branch of its motion which was for summary judgment on so much of the complaint, as, in effect, sought a determination that the amount of the benefits sought by the defendant was not in accordance with the workers’ compensation fee schedule (see Oleg’s Acupuncture, P.C. v Hereford Ins. Co., 58 Misc 3d 151[A], 2018 NY Slip Op 50095[U] [App Term, 2d Dept 2018]; Compas Med., P.C. v 21st Century Ins. Co., 57 Misc 3d 132[A], 2017 NY Slip Op 51228[U] [App Term, 2d Dept 2017]; Renelique v Allstate Ins. Co., 57 Misc 3d 126[A], 2017 NY Slip Op 51141[U] [App Term, 2d Dept 2017]; Dynasty Med. Care, P.C. v 21st Century Advantage Ins. Co., 55 Misc 3d 141[A], 2017 Slip Op 50597[U] [App Term, 2d Dept 2017]; Alleviation Med. Servs., P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 47 Misc 3d 149[A], 2015 NY Slip Op 50778[U] [App Term, 2d Dept 2015]). Contrary to the court’s determination, however, the defendant, in opposition to that prima facie showing, failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Renelique v Allstate Ins. Co., 57 Misc 3d 126[A] [2017]; Dynasty Med. Care, P.C. v 21st Century Advantage Ins. Co., 55 Misc 3d 141[A] [2017]). Accordingly, that branch of the plaintiff’s motion should have been granted.

Since the defendant’s submissions were not sufficient to establish that the arbitrator and the master arbitrator were correct in awarding the defendant no-fault insurance benefits in the principal sum of $11,352.46, the Supreme Court should not have searched the record and awarded summary judgment to the defendant. Rivera, J.P., Austin, Cohen and Iannacci, JJ., concur.

Decided on May 10, 2019

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

Decided on May 10, 2019

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