[*1]

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Department, 2d, 11th and 13th Judicial Districts, October 30, 2020

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

Gary Tsirelman, P.C. (Selina Chin and David M. Gottlieb of counsel) for appellant.

Law Office of Goldstein, Flecker & Hopkins (Lawrence J. Chanice of counsel) for respondent.

Ordered that the order is reversed, with $30 costs, and defendant’s motion for, in effect, summary judgment dismissing the complaint is denied.

In this action by a corporate provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits for services rendered to plaintiff’s assignor in 2009, defendant moved for, in effect, summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Defendant argued that plaintiff professional corporation could not enforce its claims because its sole shareholder had been legally disqualified from rendering professional services upon the revocation of his chiropractic license on June 28, 2010. The Civil Court granted defendant’s motion.

Initially, it is noted that defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 was made after issue had been joined. Generally, such a motion must be made “before service of the responsive pleading is required” (CPLR 3211 [e]), although “[w]hether or not issue [*2]has been joined, the court, after adequate notice to the parties, may treat the motion as a motion for summary judgment” (CPLR 3211 [c]). While it is uncontested that the Civil Court did not notify the parties that it was treating the motion as one for summary judgment, an exception to the notice requirement is applicable here, as defendant’s motion exclusively involved “a purely legal question rather than any issues of fact” (Mihlovan v Grozavu, 72 NY2d 506, 508 [1988]; Four Seasons Hotels v Vinnik, 127 AD2d 310, 320 [1987]; Renelique v State-Wide Ins. Co., 50 Misc 3d 137[A], 2016 NY Slip Op 50095[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2016]). All the relevant facts are undisputed. Consequently, as the sole issue was the application of the Business Corporation Law, it was proper for the Civil Court to, in effect, treat defendant’s motion to dismiss as one for summary judgment “without first giving notice of its intention to do so” (Four Seasons Hotels, 127 AD2d at 320).

Pursuant to Business Corporation Law §§ 1509 and 1510, when professionals lose their license, they are required to sever{**70 Misc 3d at 28} their ties with the professional service corporation. If the professional does not sever those ties, section 1509 grants the professional service corporation the authority to force the professional to do so, and failure to enforce this requirement constitutes a ground for forfeiture of the professional service corporation’s certificate of incorporation and its dissolution. Section 1510, among other things, directs the professional service corporation to repurchase the professional’s shares within six months of his disqualification. None of these requirements is self-executing.

Here, the professional has not complied with section 1509 and the professional service corporation has not repurchased his shares pursuant to section 1510, so the professional remains the corporation’s sole shareholder. No one has moved for forfeiture of plaintiff’s certificate of incorporation or its dissolution. Despite revocation of its shareholder’s professional license, plaintiff continued to exist and is entitled to wind up its affairs and seek to recover no-fault benefits for the services it rendered to its assignor prior to June 28, 2010 (see A.B. Med. Servs., PLLC v National Grange Mut. Ins. Co., 34 Misc 3d 145[A], 2012 NY Slip Op 50154[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2012]; Kipor Medicine, P.C. v GEICO, 28 Misc 3d 129[A], 2010 NY Slip Op 51247[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2010]; see e.g. A.B. Med. Servs., PLLC v Travelers Indem. Co., 26 Misc 3d 69 [App Term, 2d Dept, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2009]).

The case of Ocean Diagnostic Imaging, P.C. v Merchants Mut. Ins. Co. (15 Misc 3d 9 [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2007]) is distinguishable. In that case, the death of the doctor who was the sole officer, director and shareholder of a professional service corporation required the dismissal of its appeal because no one remained with authority to prosecute the action. Here, however, the sole shareholder is alive and continues to have authority to act for the professional corporation as “an administrator, whose role is to preserve the value of, and prevent loss to, the [professional service corporation]” (Eastern Star Acupuncture, P.C. v Allstate Ins. Co., 36 Misc 3d 41, 43 [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2012]), rather than as a member of the profession from which he has been barred.

Section 1510 directs plaintiff to take actions that it concededly failed to do. It does not hold, however, that such a violation makes otherwise valid contracts unenforceable or that the{**70 Misc 3d at 29} corporation’s debtor should be entitled to withhold payment for services legally rendered. Consequently, there is no bar to plaintiff’s pursuit of reimbursement for services rendered to its assignor.

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

Aliotta, P.J., Siegal and Toussaint, JJ., concur.

Index No. 650138/2019

Larkin Farrell LLC, New York, NY (William Larkin of counsel), for plaintiff.

Law Offices of Viktoriya Litvenko P.C. (Viktoriya Litvenko of counsel), for defendant Right Choice Supply, Inc.

This motion concerns the potential obligation to pay no-fault insurance benefits of [*2]plaintiff American Transit Insurance Company. Defendant Juan Romero-Richiez was in a vehicle that was involved in a collision. The vehicle was covered by a no-fault insurance policy issued by American Transit. Romero-Richiez assigned the right to collect no-fault benefits under that policy to various treating medical providers, including defendant Right Choice Supply Inc. Romero-Richiez himself applied for no-fault benefits, which American Transit denied.

American Transit brought this action for a declaratory judgment that it is not required to pay no-fault benefits to Romero-Richiez or to the other defendants (all medical-provider assignees of his). Romero-Richiez and several of the medical-provider defendants did not appear. American Transit moved for default judgment under CPLR 3215 against Romero-Richiez and the other non-appearing defendants.

This court granted the default-judgment motion without opposition. In October 2019 the court issued a declaration that Romero-Richiez and the non-appearing providers “are not entitled to no-fault benefits as a result of a motor vehicle accident involving Juan Romero-Richiez . . . due to Romero-Richiez’s failure to appear for duly scheduled independent medical examinations.” (NYSCEF No. 30 at 2 [capitalization omitted].)

American Transit now moves for summary judgment under CPLR 3212 against Right Choice.^[FN1] The motion is denied.

DISCUSSION

This action is the latest in a series of cases before this court, each brought by American Transit, on what evidentiary showing is required for a no-fault insurer to obtain a declaration of no-coverage based upon the injured party’s failure to appear for an independent medical examination (IME) or examination under oath (EUO).

American Transit has consistently taken the position in these cases that all it need show to obtain summary judgment is proof that (i) after receiving the injured-person assignor’s NF-2 application for no-fault benefits, American Transit properly mailed the injured person two requests to appear for an IME or EUO; (ii) the injured person twice failed to appear as requested (or to seek rescheduling of the IME or EUO); and (iii) American Transit sought and obtained a default judgment of no-coverage against the injured-person assignor for failure to appear for the duly scheduled IME or EUO.

This court has consistently rejected this position. (See, e.g., American Transit Ins. Co. v Martinez, 2020 NY Slip Op 50930[U] [Sup Ct, NY County Aug. 21, 2020]; American Transit Ins. Co. v. Reynoso, 2020 WL 5524771 [Sup Ct, NY County Sept. 11, 2020].) Instead, this court has held that under the decisions of the Appellate Division, First Department, in American Transit Ins. Co. v Longevity Med. Supply, Inc. (131 AD3d 841, 841 [1st Dept 2015]), and [*3]Mapfre Ins. Co. of NY v Manoo (140 AD3d 468, 469 [1st Dept 2016]), American Transit also must satisfy one of two additional elements to show its entitlement to summary judgment.

First, American Transit could establish that it has met the timeliness requirements of 11 NYCRR § 65-3.5 (b) and (d) through evidence that it requested an IME or EUO within 15 business days of receiving claimant’s NF-3 verification forms or bills submitted by the injured person’s medical providers (see 11 NYCRR § 65-3.5 [b]), and (in the case of an IME) scheduled the IME to be held within 30 calendar days of receipt of those forms. (See Longevity Medical Supply, 131 AD3d at 841.) Second, American Transit could establish that it did not need to satisfy these requirements because it had requested an IME or EUO prior to receiving an NF-3 form or a provider bill. (See Manoo, 140 AD3d at 469.)

Here, American Transit has not attempted to do either. Instead, it rests on the same evidentiary showing that this court has previously held insufficient. And its motion papers emphasize that numerous decisions rendered by other judges of Supreme Court, New York County, have granted it default judgment or summary judgment on that showing. (See NYSCEF No. 57 at 1-5; NYSCEF No. 58 [reproducing decisions].) These decisions, even if not binding on this court, might carry persuasive force. But American Transit does not contend that other judges have had before them the particular arguments about American Transit’s evidentiary burden that this court has found persuasive in its prior rulings—much less that other judges have considered and rejected those arguments.

That said, given the extent to which the issue has recurred, this court feels it appropriate to lay out in further detail why it finds American Transit’s position on the required evidentiary showing—and the three principal contentions supporting that position—to be without merit.

1. American Transit asserts that if an insurer obtains a default judgment against a injured-party assignor—thereby establishing prima facie that the assignor failed to comply with the requirement to appear for requested IMEs or EUOs—the assignee is bound by this judgment because the assignee has no more rights than those possessed by the assignor. (See NYSCEF No. 57 at 5-6.) But American Transit still fails to grapple with the decision of the Appellate Division, Second Department, holding that when an assignment of no-fault benefits is made prior to the institution of legal action, a decision on default against the assignor does not bar the assignee from asserting a claim to no-fault benefits. (See Lakeside Hosp. v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 70 AD2d 658, 658 [2d Dept 1979], citing Gramatan Home Inv. Corp. v Lopez, 46 NY2d 481, 486-487 [1979].) Absent a contrary decision of the Court of Appeals or Appellate Division, First Department, the holding of Lakeside Hospital is binding on this court. (See D’Alessandro v Carro, 123 AD3d 1, 6 [1st Dept 2014].) American Transit has not identified—and this court is not aware of—any such contrary decision.^[FN2]

2. American Transit argues that under the First Department’s decision in Unitrin Advantage Insurance Co. v Bayshore Physical Therapy, PLLC (82 AD3d 559 [1st Dept 2011]), the failure to appear for IMEs is a breach of a condition precedent to coverage, such that the insurer cannot be precluded from denying the claim for failure to appear. (See NYSCEF No. 57 at 7-8, citing Central Gen. Hosp. v Chubb Grp. of Ins. Cos., 90 NY2d 195 [1997].) But, as this court noted in Martinez, Reynoso, and others, the rule in Bayshore does not sweep that far. Since Bayshore, the First Department has held that a plaintiff insurer’s motion for summary judgment is properly denied when the plaintiff fails to establish either that it complied with the IME-scheduling requirements of 11 NYCRR § 65-3.5, or that those requirements are inapplicable. (See, e.g., American Transit Ins. Co. v Longevity Med. Supply, Inc., 131 AD3d 841, 841 [1st Dept 2015] [failure to establish compliance]; Kemper Indep. Ins. Co. v Adelaida Physical Therapy, P.C., 147 AD3d 437, 438 [1st Dept 2017] [failure to establish inapplicability].)

Indeed, Longevity Medical Supply expressly distinguished Bayshore on the ground that in that case the insurer had established “that it requested IMEs in accordance with the procedures and time frames set forth in the no-fault implementing regulations.” (131 AD3d at 842, quoting Bayshore, 82 AD3d at 560 [emphasis in Longevity]; accord Adelaida Physical Therapy, 147 AD3d at 438 [construing Bayshore to require an insurer to establish either timeliness or inapplicability of the timeliness requirements].) And this makes sense: the issue before the Court of Appeals in Central General Hospital was whether an insurer is precluded in litigation from raising an otherwise-valid lack-of-coverage defense by a prior failure to timely deny the claim (see 90 NY2d at 199-201)—not whether a failure-to-appear-for-IME defense is valid absent evidence that the IME was timely requested.

3. American Transit claims that the 15-business-day deadline to request an IME after receipt of a set of verification forms, and the 30-calendar-day period for holding the IME after receipt of the set of verification forms, “only appl[y] to medical examinations that are necessary to determine if th[e] particular claim” dealt with in that set of forms “should be paid.” (NYSCEF No. 57 at 10.) American Transit points out that the no-fault insurance endorsement mandated by regulation requires “the eligible injured person” to “submit to medical examination . . . when, and as often as, the Company may reasonably require.” (11 NYSCRR § 65-1.1.) Thus, where an IME “is being scheduled” under this provision “for a more broad reason, ie to determine, generally, if the claimant needs future treatment,” the 15- and 30-day deadlines assertedly do not apply. (NYSCEF No. 57 at 11.) This court is not persuaded.

American Transit cites no authority of any kind for its position. Given the sheer number of no-fault decisions issued by New York courts at all levels, this dearth of authority is striking. And none of the eleven First Department decisions issued on timeliness of IME/EUO requests over the last five years even suggest that some requests made after the insurer has received a claim for benefits are nonetheless exempt from the timeliness requirements of § 65-3.5.^[FN3] Instead, [*4]these decisions have looked only at whether an IME/EUO request was made prior to the receipt of a claim form or provider bill (in which case the request is governed by the rule announced in Manoo), or after receipt (in which case the timeliness requirements of § 65-3.5 apply).

Moreover, on American Transit’s position, an IME request made more than 15 business days after receipt of a given claim could still be timely—as long as the request were made for reasons other than assessing the validity of that particular claim. As a corollary, therefore, a failure to appear for the timely requested IME would assertedly warrant denial of the pending claim for breach of a condition precedent to coverage. Yet in All of NY, the First Department reversed the trial court and held that failure to appear for an EUO that had been requested untimely relative to a particular benefits claim would not warrant denial of that claim. (See 158 AD3d at 449.) American Transit provides no explanation about how in practice an arbitrator or a court would be able to distinguish between an IME/EUO request that was late (because it was made more than 15 business days after receipt of a given claim or bill), or timely (because it was not intended to seek verification of any particular claim or bill).

This potential confusion points to an additional shortcoming of American Transit’s interpretive argument. The carefully drafted, intricate no-fault-benefits regulatory framework contains no language drawing the distinction about types of IME/EUO requests that American Transit finds in “the plain language of the regulation” (NYSCEF No. 57 at 10). And the regulations do not contain provisions offering guidance to arbitrators and courts on how to determine on which side of that distinction a given IME/EUO request falls.

Further, American Transit’s argument heavily emphasizes the potential utility of an IME in assessing whether an individual needs further treatment, separate and apart from any individual claim. (See NYSCEF No. 57 at 9-10.) Yet the same mandatory insurance endorsement requires the injured person or their assignee to appear for EUOs “as may reasonably be required,” just like IMEs. (11 NYSCRR § 65-1.1.) And it is much harder to see how an EUO (i.e., a deposition) would be informative in assessing an individual’s general need for treatment.

To be sure, an EUO (or an IME) might well be helpful if the insurer suspects that an individual’s claimed injuries are exaggerated, or indeed invented altogether, as in the case of a staged “accident.” Yet the insurer’s interest in using IMEs and EUOs to limit potential insurance fraud is fully accommodated by its ability either (i) to request an IME or EUO based on suspicions of fraud that arise before claims have come in, which under Manoo would not be subject to the timeliness requirements of § 65-3.5; or (ii) to request an IME or EUO consistent with § 65-3.5 because particular claims for treatment have raised questions about excessive or unnecessary treatment. American Transit does not explain why, given these options, it would [*5]also be necessary to be able to request an IME (or EUO), in effect, preemptively in order to assess the injured person’s general need for further treatment before providers have submitted claims for such further treatment.

Finally, even if this court were inclined to accept American Transit’s argument that an IME/EUO request is outside the scope of § 65-3.5 if made out of a desire to assess the injured person’s general need for treatment, American Transit has not submitted any evidence that the IME request at issue in this case was made for that general-need-for-treatment reason. Absent such evidence—and absent any evidence about when the IME request was made relative to when American Transit received verification forms or bills from providers—American Transit cannot establish its prima facie entitlement to judgment regardless.

Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons it is hereby

ORDERED that American Transit’s motion under CPLR 3212 for summary judgment in its favor is denied.

DATE: 10/9/2020

Footnotes

Footnote 1:American Transit has separately settled with several other medical-provider defendants. (See NYSCEF Nos. 24, 25, 54.)

Footnote 2:The Court of Appeals decision on which American Transit relies, New York & Presbyterian Hospital v Country-Wide Insurance Co., involved a ruling on the merits in an action brought by an assignee against an insurer, rather than a ruling about the effects of a default judgment obtained by an insurer against an assignor. (See 17 NY3d 586, 588 [2011].)

Footnote 3:See Global Liberty Ins. Co. v Evans (176 AD3d 599 [1st Dept 2019]); Hertz Vehs. LLC v Best Touch PT, P.C. (162 AD3d 617 [1st Dept 2018]); Hereford Ins. Co. v Lida’s Med. Supply, Inc. (161 AD3d 442 [1st Dept 2018]); Unitrin Advantage Ins. Co. v All of NY, Inc. (158 AD3d 449 [1st Dept 2018]); Hertz Vehs. LLC v. Significant Care, PT, P.C. (157 AD3d 600 [1st Dept 2018]); Adelaida Physical Therapy (147 AD3d 437); Manoo (140 AD3d 468); National Liability & Fire Ins. Co. v Tam Medical Supply Corp. (131 AD3d 851 [1st Dept 2015); American Transit Ins. Co. v Vance (131 AD3d 849 [1st Dept 2015]); Longevity Medical Supply (131 AD3d 841); American Transit Ins. Co. v Clark (131 AD3d 840 [1st Dept 2015]).

651486/2019

Larkin Farrell LLC, New York, NY (William Larkin of counsel), for plaintiff.

Law Offices of Gary Tsirelman P.C., Brooklyn, NY (Jung Pryjma of counsel), for defendant Wellmart RX Inc.

This motion concerns the potential obligation to pay no-fault insurance benefits of plaintiff American Transit Insurance Company. Defendant Jeremy Martinez was in a vehicle that was involved in a collision. The vehicle was covered by a no-fault insurance policy issued by American Transit. Martinez assigned the right to collect no-fault benefits under that policy to various treating medical providers, including defendant Wellmart RX Inc. Wellmart applied for no-fault benefits, which American Transit denied.

American Transit brought this action for a declaratory judgment that it is not required to pay no-fault benefits to Martinez or to the other defendants (all medical-provider assignees of Martinez). Wellmart was the only defendant that appeared in the action. American Transit moved for default judgment under CPLR 3215 against Martinez and several of the other non-appearing defendants.

This court granted the default-judgment motion without opposition. The court issued a declaration that Martinez and the non-appearing providers “are not entitled to no-fault benefits as a result of a motor vehicle accident involving Jeremy Martinez . . . due to Jeremy Martinez’s failure to appear for duly scheduled independent medical examinations.” (NYSCEF No. 34 at 1-2 [capitalization omitted].) The court also severed and continued the action as against the remaining defendants, including Wellmart. (See id. at 2.)

American Transit now moves for summary judgment under CPLR 3212 against Wellmart. The motion is denied.

DISCUSSION

American Transit argues that because Wellmart is Martinez’s assignee, Wellmart’s claim for benefits is derivative of Martinez’s rights under the no-fault policy—and thus that the default judgment against Martinez ousted Wellmart’s right to claim benefits. This court disagrees. Decades ago, the Appellate Division held that when an assignment of no-fault benefits is made prior to the institution of legal action, a decision on default against the assignor does not bar the assignee from asserting a claim to no-fault benefits. (See Lakeside Hosp. v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 70 AD2d 658, 658 [2d Dept 1979], citing Gramatan Home Inv. Corp. v Lopez, 46 NY2d 481, 486-487 [1979].)

To be sure, in Lakeland Hospital the court noted that the assignee was not a party to the prior arbitration. Here, as American Transit points out, Wellmart is a party defendant. But although Wellmart is a party to this action, it was not a party to the prior motion. To the contrary, American Transit’s motion papers expressly stated that “[n]o relief is sought at this time with respect to” Wellmart. (NYSCEF No. 20 at 1.) This court’s prior order in this action, although it “awarded a default judgment to [American Transit] against [Wellmart’s] assignor . . . did not declare the rights of [American Transit] as against [Wellmart].” The default-judgment order thus does not have preclusive effect on the current summary-judgment motion. (Jamaica Wellness Medical, P.C. v Mercury Casualty Co., 2018 NY Slip Op 51128[U], at *2 (App Term 2d Dept 2018]; accord Ultimate Health Prods., Inc. v Ameriprise Auto & Home, 57 Misc 3d 9, 11 [App Term 2d Dept 2017].)

American Transit argues that the grant of default judgment against Martinez had the effect of declaring that the no-fault policy was void, leaving Martinez without any claim to benefits that he could [*2]have assigned to Wellmart in the first place. But the judgment that American Transit requested from this court, and which this court entered, did not reach so far. As noted above, the default judgment merely declared that Wellmart (and the other non-appearing defendants) are not entitled to benefits, without going on to declare that the no-fault policy itself was void. (See NYSCEF No. 34 at 1-2.) In any event, in Lakeland Hospital, the arbitration decision entered on the assignor’s default sustained the insurer’s argument that the assignor had no claim to benefits as a result of her no-fault policy having been canceled outright prior to the occurrence—and thus prior to any assignment—for nonpayment of premiums. (See 70 AD2d at 658.) The Second Department nonetheless held that this prior arbitration decision did not preclude the assignee from claiming a right to benefits. (See id.)

American Transit thus is not entitled to summary judgment against Wellmart based merely on this court’s prior default-judgment order against Martinez.

Whether American Transit is Entitled to Summary Judgment on the Merits

Alternatively, American Transit argues that Martinez’s failure to appear for scheduled independent medical examinations (IMEs) defeats coverage under the no-fault policy, and thus forecloses Wellmart’s claim to benefits. This court is not persuaded.

A no-fault insurer seeking a declaration of no coverage due to asserted violations of the terms of the policy must first demonstrate that it complied with each of the procedural and timeliness requirements of 11 NYCRR § 65-3.5, governing the handling of no-fault claims. (See American Transit Ins. Co. v Longevity Med. Supply, Inc., 131 AD3d 841, 841 [1st Dept 2015].) One such requirement is that if the insurer requests additional verification of a no-fault claim in the form of an IME, the IME must be scheduled to occur “within 30 calendar days from the date of receipt of the prescribed verification forms.” (11 NYCRR § 65-3.5 [d].) American Transit has not shown that it satisfied this 30-calendar-day timeframe. The documents submitted by American Transit show at most that the first IME was scheduled to be held 26 days after the date of the scheduling notice. (See NYSCEF No. 41 at 17.) Those documents do not reflect when American Transit received the prescribed verification form, as required to determine whether the IME’s scheduled date satisfied the 30-day requirement.^[FN1] Given this failure of proof, American Transit has not satisfied its initial prima facie burden at summary judgment. (See Longevity Medical Supply, 131 AD3d at 841.)^[FN2]

American Transit argues that these deadlines apply only to “medical examinations that are necessary to determine if [a] particular claim should be paid,” as opposed to “being scheduled for a more broad reason, ie to determine, generally, if the claimant needs future treatment.” (NYSCEF No. 47 at 12-13.) Even assuming for the sake of argument that this interpretive argument is correct, it does not avail American Transit here.

The record evidence on this motion reflects only that American Transit received Martinez’s NF-2 benefits application on October 2, 2017 (see NYSCEF No. 41 at 11-14 [mailroom stamp and date/time footer]), and prepared an IME scheduling notice 10 days later, on October 12, 2017 (see id. at 17). That short time period itself suggests a connection between Martinez’s initial benefits claim and the scheduling of an IME. More fundamentally, there is no record evidence indicating any other purpose for holding the [*3]IME that could even potentially take that IME out of the scheduling framework of 11 NYCRR § 65-3.5 (b) through (d).

Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons it is hereby

ORDERED that American Transit’s motion under CPLR 3212 for summary judgment in its favor as to defendant Wellmart is denied.

8/21/2020

Footnotes

Footnote 1:American Transit has provided the NF-2 claim form provided by Martinez, which contains markings indicating that American Transit received the form on October 2, 2017, 36 days before the IME date. (See NYSCEF No. 41 at 11-14 [mailroom stamp and date/time footer].) But it has not provided the NF-3 verification form.

Footnote 2:In arguing that it could deny no-fault coverage due to Martinez’s failure to appear for IMEs even if those IMEs were not timely scheduled (see NYSCEF No. 54 at 5-10), American Transit does not mention the First Department’s decision in Longevity Medical Supply.

650105/2019

Larkin Farrell LLC, New York, NY (William Larkin of counsel), for plaintiff.

Law Offices of Gary Tsirelman P.C., Brooklyn, NY (Jung Pryjma of counsel), for defendant City Wide Health Facility Inc.

The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 002) 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55 were read on this motion to/for SUMMARY JUDGMENT.

This motion concerns the potential obligation to pay no-fault insurance benefits of plaintiff American Transit Insurance Company. Defendant Marsillant Wildex was in a vehicle that was involved in a collision. The vehicle was covered by a no-fault insurance policy issued by American Transit. Wildex assigned the right to collect no-fault benefits under that policy to various treating medical providers, including defendant City Wide Health Facility Inc. City Wide applied for no-fault benefits, which American Transit denied.

American Transit brought this action for a declaratory judgment that it is not required to pay no-fault benefits to Wildex or to the other defendants (all medical-provider assignees of Wildex). City Wide was the only defendant that appeared in the action. American Transit moved for default judgment under CPLR 3215 against Wildex and the other non-appearing defendants.

This court granted the default-judgment motion without opposition. The court issued a declaration that Wildex and the non-appearing providers “are not entitled to no-fault benefits as a result of a motor vehicle accident involving Marsillant Wildex . . . due to Marsillant Wildex’s failure to appear for duly scheduled independent medical examinations.” (NYSCEF No. 39 at 2-3 [capitalization omitted].) The court also severed and continued the action as against City Wide. (See id. at 3.)

American Transit now moves for summary judgment under CPLR 3212 against City Wide. The motion is denied.

DISCUSSION

American Transit argues that because City Wide is Wildex’s assignee, City Wide’s claim for benefits is derivative of Wildex’s rights under the no-fault policy—and thus that the default judgment against Wildex ousted City Wide’s right to claim benefits. This court disagrees. Decades ago, the Appellate Division held that when an assignment of no-fault benefits is made prior to the institution of legal action, a decision on default against the assignor does not bar the [*2]assignee from asserting a claim to no-fault benefits. (See Lakeside Hosp. v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 70 AD2d 658, 658 [2d Dept 1979], citing Gramatan Home Inv. Corp. v Lopez, 46 NY2d 481, 486-487 [1979].)

To be sure, in Lakeland Hospital the court noted that the assignee was not a party to the prior arbitration. Here, as American Transit points out, City Wide is a party defendant. But although City Wide is a party to this action, it was not a party to the prior motion. To the contrary, American Transit’s motion papers expressly stated that “[n]o relief is sought at this time with respect to” City Wide. (NYSCEF No. 27 at 2.) This court’s prior order in this action, although it “awarded a default judgment to [American Transit] against [City Wide’s] assignor . . . did not declare the rights of [American Transit] as against [City Wide].” The default-judgment order thus does not have preclusive effect on the current summary-judgment motion. (Jamaica Wellness Medical, P.C. v Mercury Casualty Co., 2018 NY Slip Op 51128[U], at *2 (App Term 2d Dept 2018]; accord Ultimate Health Prods., Inc. v Ameriprise Auto & Home, 57 Misc 3d 9, 11 [App Term 2d Dept 2017].)

American Transit argues that the grant of default judgment against Wildex had the effect of declaring that the no-fault policy was void, leaving Wildex without any claim to benefits that he could have assigned to City Wide in the first place. But the judgment that American Transit requested from this court, and which this court entered, did not reach so far. As noted above, the default judgment merely declared that Wildex (and the other non-appearing defendants) are not entitled to benefits, without going on to declare that the no-fault policy itself was void. (See NYSCEF No. 39 at 2-3.) In any event, in Lakeland Hospital, the arbitration decision entered on the assignor’s default sustained the insurer’s argument that the assignor had no claim to benefits as a result of her no-fault policy having been canceled outright prior to the occurrence—and thus prior to any assignment—for nonpayment of premiums. (See 70 AD2d at 658.) The Second Department nonetheless held that this prior arbitration decision did not preclude the assignee from claiming a right to benefits. (See id.)

American Transit thus is not entitled to summary judgment against City Wide based merely on this court’s prior default-judgment order against Wildex.

Whether American Transit is Entitled to Summary Judgment on the Merits

Alternatively, American Transit argues that Wildex’s failure to appear for scheduled independent medical examinations (IMEs) defeats coverage under the no-fault policy, and thus forecloses City Wide’s claim to benefits. This court is not persuaded.

A no-fault insurer seeking a declaration of no coverage due to asserted violations of the terms of the policy must first demonstrate that it complied with each of the procedural and timeliness requirements of 11 NYCRR § 65-3.5, governing the handling of no-fault claims. (See American Transit Ins. Co. v Longevity Med. Supply, Inc., 131 AD3d 841, 841 [1st Dept 2015].) One such requirement is that if the insurer requests additional verification of a no-fault claim in the form of an IME, the IME must be scheduled to occur “within 30 calendar days from the date [*3]of receipt of the prescribed verification forms.” (11 NYCRR § 65-3.5 [d].) American Transit has not shown that it satisfied this 30-calendar-day timeframe. To the contrary, the documents submitted by American Transit indicate that the first IME was scheduled to be held 43 days after the date of the scheduling notice itself. (See NYSCEF No. 48 at 20.) Given this failure of proof, American Transit has not satisfied its initial prima facie burden at summary judgment. (See Longevity Medical Supply, 131 AD3d at 841.)^[FN1]

American Transit argues that these deadlines apply only to “medical examinations that are necessary to determine if [a] particular claim should be paid,” as opposed to “being scheduled for a more broad reason, ie to determine, generally, if the claimant needs future treatment.” (NYSCEF No. 54 at 12-13.) Even assuming for the sake of argument that this interpretive argument is correct, it does not avail American Transit here.

The record evidence on this motion reflects only that American Transit received Wildex’s NF-2 benefits application on July 31, 2017 (see NYSCEF No. 48 at 11-14 [mailroom stamp and date/time footer]), and prepared an IME scheduling notice 16 days later, on August 16, 2017 (see id. at 20). That short time period itself suggests a connection between Wildex’s initial benefits claim and the scheduling of an IME. More fundamentally, there is no record evidence indicating any other purpose for holding the IME that could even potentially take that IME out of the scheduling framework of 11 NYCRR § 65-3.5 (b) through (d).

Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons it is hereby

ORDERED that American Transit’s motion under CPLR 3212 for summary judgment in its favor as to defendant City Wide is denied.

Defendants.

8/21/2020

Footnotes

Footnote 1:In arguing that it could deny no-fault coverage due to Wildex’s failure to appear for IMEs even if those IMEs were not timely scheduled (see NYSCEF No. 54 at 5-10), American Transit does not mention the First Department’s decision in Longevity Medical Supply.

Index No. 161280/2018

The Law Office of Daniel J. Tucker, Brooklyn, NY (R. Jacob Lamar of counsel), for plaintiff.

The Rybak Law Firm, PLLC, Brooklyn, NY (Oleg Rybak of counsel), for defendants Acupuncture Now, P.C., Healthway Medical Care, P.C., Jules Francois Parisien, M.D., and SB Chiropractic, P.C.

This motion concerns plaintiff’s potential obligation to pay no-fault insurance benefits. Defendant Elvina Bookman was a passenger in a vehicle that was involved in a collision. The vehicle was covered by a no-fault insurance policy issued by plaintiff American Transit Insurance Company. Bookman applied for no-fault benefits, which American Transit denied.

In this action, American Transit seeks a declaratory judgment that it is not required to pay no-fault benefits to Bookman or to the other defendants (medical providers acting as Bookman’s assignees). American Transit now moves for summary judgment on this claim under CPLR 3212 as against those defendants who have appeared in the action, and moves for default judgment under CPLR 3215 as against the remaining, non-appearing defendants. The motion is denied.

A no-fault insurer seeking a declaration of no coverage due to asserted violations of the terms of the policy must first demonstrate that it complied with each of the procedural and timeliness requirements of 11 NYCRR § 65-3.5, governing the handling of no-fault claims. (See American Transit Ins. Co. v Longevity Med. Supply, Inc., 131 AD3d 841, 841 [1st Dept 2015].) American Transit has not satisfied that requirement here.

Section 65-3.5 provides among other things that once an insurer receives a claim for benefits, the insurer has 10 business days to provide the claimant with the forms that it requires for verification of the claim. (See 11 NYCRR § 65-3.5 [a].) Once the insurer receives the completed verification forms, it then has 15 business days to request further verification, such as an examination under oath. (See id. § 65-3.5 [b].)

Here, the record reflects that American Transit received an NF-2 benefits application form from Bookman on August 2, 2018. And the record reflects that American Transit requested on August 28, 2018, that Bookman appear for an examination under oath. Yet nothing in the record (whether in the form of an affidavit or documentary evidence) might establish when American Transit sent the necessary verification forms to Bookman, or when American Transit received the completed verification forms back from Bookman. Absent that information, American Transit has failed to satisfy all the elements of its claim for declaratory relief.

American Transit thus is not entitled to summary judgment under CPLR 3212 against the answering defendants. Similarly, to obtain a default judgment against the non-appearing defendants American Transit is required to provide proof (such as an affidavit) of all the facts necessary to establish its prima facie entitlement to relief. (See CPLR 3215 [f]; Matter of Dyno v Rose, 260 AD2d 694, 698 [3d Dept 1999].) American Transit has not met that requirement here, and thus is not entitled to default judgment, either.

Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED that the branch of American Transit’s motion seeking summary judgment under CPLR 3212 against the answering defendants is denied; and it is further

ORDERED that the branch of American Transit’s motion seeking default judgment under CPLR 3215 against the non-appearing defendants is denied.

Date: 5/27/20

Index No. 156945/2016

Goldberg, Miller & Rubin, P.C., New York, NY (Harlan R. Schreiber and Timothy R. Bishop of counsel), for plaintiff.

Economou & Economou, P.C., Syosset, NY (Ralph C. Caio of counsel), for defendant.

This motion concerns whether plaintiff Unitrin Advantage Insurance Company must pay approximately $12,000 in no-fault insurance benefits to defendant Andrew J. Dowd, M.D. (plus interest and attorney fees), for two surgeries Dr. Dowd performed in 2011.

BACKGROUND

Several individuals (nonparties in this action) allegedly suffered a collision while in a vehicle covered by a no-fault insurance policy issued by Unitrin. One individual, Quente Wright, was treated by Dr. Dowd. In July 2011, Dr. Dowd operated on Wright. Dowd submitted a benefits claim to Unitrin for that surgery (for $5,943.59), which Unitrin received on August 1, [*2]2011. In September 2011, Dowd performed a second surgery on Wright, and submitted a second claim to Unitrin (for $6,106.56), which Unitrin received on October 7, 2011.

Unitrin was skeptical that Wright had been involved in a legitimate, rather than staged, collision. It was similarly skeptical that Wright had sustained any injuries requiring surgery. On September 22, 2011, Unitrin mailed to Dr. Dowd a request that he appear for an examination under oath (EUO) to answer questions about the medical necessity of the first surgery. The EUO was scheduled for October 6, 2011. Dr. Dowd did not appear for the EUO. Unitrin sent him a second letter, on October 11, 2011, requesting that he appear for a rescheduled EUO on October 25. Dowd again did not appear. Unitrin denied Dowd’s benefits claims for both surgeries based on his repeated failure to appear for an EUO.

Dr. Dowd disputed Unitrin’s denial of his claims for benefits. That dispute has a somewhat lengthy and involved procedural history that is not relevant here. What matters now is that in the current action, Unitrin is seeking a declaratory judgment that Dr. Dowd is not entitled to benefits. Dowd moves for summary judgment under CPLR 3212. He argues that he has established as a matter of law that he properly submitted claims for medical services rendered and that Unitrin failed to issue a timely denial of those claims. Unitrin cross-moves for summary judgment under CPLR 3212. According to Unitrin, Dr. Dowd failed to appear for a timely and properly scheduled EUO about the services that he claimed to have provided. Unitrin argues that it therefore properly denied the two claims

As to the benefits claim relating to the first surgery, Dr. Dowd’s motion is granted, and Unitrin’s cross-motion is denied. As to the benefits claim relating to the second surgery, Dr. Dowd’s motion is denied, and Unitrin’s cross-motion is granted.

DISCUSSION

A provider of medical services can establish a prima facie showing of entitlement to summary judgment by submitting admissible proof that the requisite claim forms were mailed and received by the carrier and that the payment is overdue. (See Insurance Law § 5106 [a]; New York & Presbyterian Hosp. v Countrywide Ins. Co., 44 AD3d 729, 843 [2d Dept 2007].) Here, Unitrin does not contest that it received the requisite claim forms from Dr. Dowd or that the claims remain unpaid. Unitrin argues instead that Dowd is not entitled to benefits because he, as Wright’s assignor, violated the terms of the applicable no-fault policy by failing to appear for an EUO upon request.

A no-fault insurer seeking a declaration of no coverage due to asserted violations of the terms of the policy must first demonstrate that it complied with each procedural and timeliness requirement of 11 NYCRR § 65-3.5, governing the handling of no-fault claims. (See American Transit Ins. Co. v Longevity Med. Supply, Inc., 131 AD3d 841, 841 [1st Dept 2015].) Among other things, § 65-3.5 provides that once an insurer receives the verification forms for a pending claim for benefits, the insurer then has 15 business days to seek further verification—for example, through requesting a claimant to appear for an EUO. (See id. § 65-3.5 [b]; Unitrin Advantage Ins. Co. v All of NY, Inc., 158 AD3d 449, 449 [1st Dept 2018].) A claimant’s failure [*3]without reasonable cause to appear for a timely and properly scheduled EUO is grounds to deny coverage.

Here, Unitrin does not seriously contest that its EUO requests were untimely as to the first surgery: The first request was mailed out on September 22, 2011, well beyond the 15-day period following Unitrin’s August 1 receipt of the benefits claim for the first surgery. Unitrin argues, though, that the EUO requests were timely as to the second surgery—and that Dr. Dowd’s failure to appear for an EUO means that Unitrin is entitled to deny benefits for both surgeries. This court disagrees.

To be sure, Unitrin’s starting premise is correct: A no-fault insurer may properly request an individual covered by no-fault insurance to appear for an EUO prior to receiving that individual’s benefits claim; and the insurer may properly deny benefits if the individual does not appear as requested. (See Mapfre Ins. Co. of NY v Manoo, 140 AD3d 468, 469 [1st Dept 2016].) But Unitrin’s conclusion does not follow. Where a claimant (such as a medical provider) submits multiple claims for benefits, and the insurer’s EUO request is timely as to some of those claims and untimely as to others, the insurer is entitled to deny coverage only as to those claims for which it timely requested verification—not as to all claims. (See All of NY, 158 AD3d at 449-450.)

This court is not persuaded by Unitrin’s contrary argument. Unitrin contends that in Hertz Vehicles, LLC v Alluri (171 AD3d 432 [1st Dept 2019]), the insurer had submitted one claim for which there was an untimely EUO request and one claim for which there was a timely request, which (assertedly) led both Supreme Court and the First Department to hold that the insurer could deny all claims retroactive to the date of loss. This contention has two key shortcomings.

First, neither the trial nor appellate decisions in Alluri actually say that where an EUO request is timely only as to one out of two claims (and then not complied with), the insurer can properly deny benefits as to both claims. Instead, each decision refers only to one claim for benefits, for which the insurer’s EUO request had been timely under Manoo. (See Hertz Vehs. v Alluri, 2017 NY Slip Op 32578 [U], at *3-*4 [Sup Ct, NY County Dec. 11, 2017]; Alluri, 171 AD3d at 432.)

Second, if the First Department had held in Alluri that one timely EUO request entitles an insurer to deny benefits even as to claims for which an untimely request had been made, that holding would have been inconsistent with the Court’s ruling the year before in All of NY Yet Alluri does not discuss, or even mention, All of NY Rather, Alluri relies on Manoo (see 171 AD3d at 432); and the holding in Manoo is premised on the Court’s conclusion that the insurer had “establish[ed] that it timely and properly mailed the notices for EUOs” to the covered individual. (140 AD3d at 469.)

Unitrin also points to the First Department’s statement in Unitrin Advantage Ins. Co. v Bayshore Phys. Therapy, LLC that “when defendants’ assignors failed to appear for the requested [medical examinations], plaintiff had the right to deny all claims retroactively to the date of loss.” ((82 AD3d 559, 560 [1st Dept 2011] [emphasis added]). But even Bayshore itself notes [*4]that the insurer there met its burden to “establish[] that it requested [medical examinations] in accordance with the procedures and time-frames set forth in the No—Fault implementing regulations.” (Id.; see also American Transit Ins. Co. v Longevity Med. Supply, Inc., 131 AD3d 841, 842 [1st Dept 2015] [emphasizing this point].) And it would be odd to say, in effect, that an insurer can still deny a benefits claim due to a claimant or assignor’s failure to appear at an EUO despite failing to timely or properly request the EUO after receiving that claim. Regardless, to the extent that a contradiction does exist between the First Department’s holdings in Bayshore and in All of NY, this court must follow the First Department’s most recent holding on the subject. (See Vaughan v Leon, 94 AD3d 646, 649 n 2 [1st Dept 2012].)

Unitrin’s EUO request upon receipt of the first claim was untimely. This court concludes, therefore, that Unitrin may not deny Dr. Dowd’s otherwise-sufficient claim for benefits from the first surgery based on Dowd’s failure to appear for an EUO.

That still leaves the claim for benefits from the second surgery. Under Manoo and Alluri, Unitrin’s EUO request was timely as to the second benefits claim—particularly since a key subject for questions at the EUO, namely the medical necessity of surgery on Quente Wright, would have been the same for both benefits claims. Dr. Dowd asserts, though, that the EUO request was improper: It did not sufficiently identify from whom Unitrin was seeking an EUO. This court disagrees. Unitrin has produced two EUO request letters that plainly request the appearance for an EUO of a principal from Dr. Dowd’s medical practice (i.e., either Dr. Dowd himself or someone with comparable authority), and also specify the subjects to be discussed at the EUO and the EUO’s time and place. Dr. Dowd does not contest that these letters were properly mailed. Nor does he contest that he failed to appear as requested. That is sufficient to establish that Dr. Dowd failed to comply with a requirement of the applicable no-fault insurance policy in this case as to his second claim for benefits.

Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED that the branch of Dr. Dowd’s motion under CPLR 3212 seeking summary judgment as to his claim for benefits in the amount of $5,943.59 (received by Unitrin on August 1, 2011) is denied; and it is further

ORDERED that the branch of Unitrin’s cross-motion under CPLR 3212 seeking summary judgment as to Dr. Dowd’s claim for benefits in the amount of $5,943.59 (received by Unitrin on August 1, 2011) is granted; and it is further

ADJUDGED AND DECREED that Unitrin owes no duty to pay Dr. Dowd that claim for benefits; and it is further

ORDERED that the branch of Dr. Dowd’s motion under CPLR 3212 seeking summary judgment as to his claim for benefits in the amount of in the amount of $6,106.56 (received by Unitrin on October 7, 2011) is granted; and it is further

ORDERED that the branch of Unitrin’s cross-motion under CPLR 3212 seeking [*5]summary judgment as to Dr. Dowd’s claim for benefits in the amount of $6,106.56 (received by Unitrin on October 7, 2011) is denied; and it is further

ADJUDGED AND DECREED that Dr. Dowd shall have judgment against Unitrin in the amount of $6,106.56; plus interest on that sum at 2% per month, running from November 6, 2012, until the entry of judgment; plus attorney fees as provided for under Insurance Law § 5106 (a) and 11 NYCRR § 65-4.6; and it is further

ORDERED that Dr. Dowd shall serve a copy of this order with notice of its entry on all parties and on the office of the County Clerk, which shall enter judgment accordingly; and it is further

ORDERED that notice of entry may be served by mail or overnight delivery service, with Dr. Dowd to e-file a copy of notice of entry (and accompanying affidavit(s) of service) on NYSCEF once filing of notices of entry in pending nonessential matters is again permitted by order of Chief Administrative Judge Lawrence Marks.

Date: 5/21/20

Index No. 156465/2018

Law Office of Peter C. Merani, P.C., New York, NY (Adam Waknine of counsel), for plaintiff.

Law Offices of Dino R. Dirienzo, Syosset, NY (Ralph C. Caio of counsel), for defendants MII Supply, LLC,. Dynamic Surgery Center, LLC, Comprehensive Medical Assist, P.C., and Citimed Services, P.A.

The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 001) 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65 were read on this motion for SUMMARY JUDGMENT

In this motion, plaintiff American Transit Insurance Company requests a declaratory judgment that it is not required to pay no-fault benefits to the various medical-provider defendants. American Transit seeks summary judgment under CPLR 3212 against certain answering defendants and default judgment under CPLR 3215 against the remaining defendants. This motion, however, is not properly before this court, because American Transit’s action has already been dismissed. The motion is denied.

This action was dismissed in May 2019 under 22 NYCRR § 202.27 due to American Transit’s failure twice to appear at scheduled preliminary conferences. American Transit never moved to vacate that default dismissal. Indeed, American Transit’s papers on the present motion do not even acknowledge that this action was previously dismissed, much less seek to offer a reasonable excuse for American Transit’s default. This court is disinclined to deem this motion to be somehow an implicit request for vacatur of the dismissal of the action.

This court’s reluctance is only heightened by the fact that American Transit’s motion is not based on admissible evidence. American Transit claims that it has good reason to believe that the underlying automobile collision in this case was staged, and therefore not an insurable [*2]incident. (See Central Gen. Hosp. v Chubb Grp. of Ins. Cos., 90 NY2d 195, 199 [1997].) But the evidence that American Transit identifies as the basis for this conclusion is a summary report that is neither sworn nor notarized, as required for it to qualify as a non-hearsay affidavit. (See NYSCEF No. 50 at 2-7.) As a result, this court could not rely on the report as a basis to vacate the dismissal of the action. (See Harris v Krauss, 87 AD3d 469, 469 [1st Dept 2011] [reversing grant of motion to vacate under CPLR 5015, where moving papers relied on evidence in a putative affidavit that had not been properly notarized].)

Thus, even if this court were to construe the present motion liberally as an application to vacate this court’s prior dismissal of this action on default—and this court declines to do so— American Transit would still fail to establish its entitlement to relief.

Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED that American Transit’s motion is denied.

Date: 5/13/20

Index No. 159037/2018

Law Offices of Daniel J. Tucker, Brooklyn NY (Megan Harris of counsel), for plaintiff.

Law Offices of Gabriel & Shapiro LLC, Rockville Centre, NY (Joseph Padrucco of counsel), for defendant Janan S. Syed, DC.

This motion concerns the potential obligation to pay no-fault insurance benefits of plaintiff American Transit Insurance Company. Nonparty Tynise Watson was a passenger in a vehicle that was allegedly involved in a collision. The vehicle was covered by a no-fault insurance policy issued by American Transit. Various medical providers applied for no-fault benefits as assignees of Watson, which American Transit denied.

In this action, American Transit seeks a declaratory judgment that it is not required to pay no-fault benefits to the various medical provider defendants. American Transit now moves for summary judgment under CPLR 3212 against defendant Janan S. Syed, DC, and moves for default judgment under CPLR 3215 against the properly served and non-appearing defendants [*2]who remain in the action.

American Transit’s motion for summary judgment and for default judgment is denied.

DISCUSSION

Both branches of American Transit’s motion rely on the same legal theory and supporting evidence. American Transit contends, in essence, that it has good reason to believe that the collision putatively giving rise to Watson’s need for medical treatment was staged, which is a proper ground for denying coverage.

A no-fault insurer seeking a declaration of no coverage based on a conclusion that the underlying collision was staged must establish as a “fact or founded belief that the alleged injury does not arise out of an insured incident.” (Central Gen. Hosp. v Chubb Grp. of Ins. Cos., 90 NY2d 195, 199 [1997].) Here, American Transit submits an affidavit from a claims investigator familiar with the case to support its conclusion that the collision was not genuine. That affidavit, however, is insufficient to meet American Transit’s burden. The affidavit’s account of the circumstances of the accident—and thus the various “red flag” indicators of a staged collision—it is based largely on inadmissible evidence, namely a police accident report and the unsigned transcript of Watson’s examination under oath (EUO).

A police accident report is admissible as a business record if, when prepared, it was based on the preparing officer’s personal observations at the scene, or if the information in the report came from an eyewitness with a business duty to report to the officer. (See Pena v. Slater, 100 AD3d 488, 489 [1st Dept 2012]; State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co. v Langan, 18 AD3d 860, 862 [2d Dept 2005].) Here, however, the police report states expressly that the preparing officer did not witness the underlying collision at issue (see NYSCEF No. 13, at 3); indeed, the report appears to indicate that the officer was not present at the scene at the time she investigated the circumstances of the collision (see id. at 1). Nor does American Transit attempt to establish that the occupants of the vehicle (the presumptive sources of the information in the report) were under a business duty to report to the investigating officer. The police report here is thus inadmissible for the hearsay purpose for which American Transit seeks to use it: establishing as fact the circumstances under which the alleged collision occurred. (See Jupa v Zaidi, 309 AD2d 606, 607 [1st Dept 2003]; accord Langan, 18 AD3d at 862.)

The affidavit of American Transit’s investigator also draws heavily on Watson’s EUO transcript. But that transcript is not signed or notarized. (See NYSCEF No. 14 at 76.) And although the transcript itself suggests that American Transit intended to send a copy of the transcript to Watson to review, sign, notarize, and return (see id.), American Transit has not met its burden to establish that it actually followed through and provided Watson the transcript, as required by CPLR 3116 (a). (See Ramirez v Willow Ridge Country Club, 84 AD3d 452, 453 [1st Dept 2011] [noting that the proponent of a deposition transcript bears the burden to show compliance with CPLR 3116 (a)].) On this record, therefore, the transcript is inadmissible hearsay as well. (See Santos v. Intown Assocs., 17 AD3d 564, 565 [2d Dept 2005].)

As hearsay, neither the police report nor the EUO transcript in this case are competent evidence to support American Transit’s motion for summary judgment. (See Jupa, 309 AD2d at 607; Santos, 17 AD3d at 565.) Nor can American Transit rely upon them to support a motion for default judgment. (See Martinez v Reiner, 104 AD3d 477, 478 [1st Dept 2013]; Zelnik v Bidermann Indus. U.S.A., Inc., 242 AD2d 227, 228 [1st Dept 1997].)

Excluding facts gleaned from the police report and Watson’s EUO transcript, the affidavit of American Transit’s investigator is based on little more than the day, time, and location of the collision. But those facts, standing alone, are not sufficient to establish a founded belief that the collision was staged—either on a prima facie basis for purposes of default judgment, or as a matter of law for purposes of summary judgment.

Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED that the branch of American Transit’s motion seeking summary judgment under CPLR 3212 against defendant Janan S. Syed, DC, is denied; and it is further

ORDERED that the branch of American Transit’s motion seeking default judgment under CPLR 3215 against the remaining properly served and non-appearing defendants is denied; and it is further

ORDERED that the parties shall confer and shall prepare a joint request for a preliminary conference with this court, as set forth in the Remote Conference Protocol available on this court’s website, http://ww2.nycourts.gov/courts/1jd/supctmanh/index.shtml.

Date: 5/07/20

654605/2019

Burke, Conway & Stiefeld, White Plains, NY (Michelle Dunleavy of counsel), for plaintiffs.

The Rybak Firm, PLLC, Brooklyn, NY (Oleg Rybak of counsel), for defendants Agyal Physical Therapy PLLC, Alford A. Smith MD, PC, and Metro Pain Specialists, PC.

Kopelevich & Feldsherova, P.C., Brooklyn, NY (David Landfair of counsel), for defendant M & M Supplies Group, Inc.

The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 001) 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54 were read on this motion to/for DEFAULT JUDGMENT

This motion concerns the potential obligation to pay no-fault insurance benefits of plaintiffs Liberty Mutual Insurance Company and LM General Insurance Company (Liberty Mutual). Defendants Trevohn Martin, Dwayne Bailey, and Damell Jackson were in a vehicle that was involved in a collision. The vehicle was covered by a no-fault insurance policy issued by Liberty Mutual. Martin, Bailey, and Jackson (and various medical providers acting as their assignees) applied for no-fault benefits, which Liberty Mutual denied.

In this action, Liberty Mutual is seeking a declaratory judgment that it is not required to pay no-fault benefits to Martin, Bailey, Jackson, or the various medical provider defendants. Liberty Mutual now moves for a default judgment under CPLR 3215 (and other related relief) against defendants. Defendants Agyal Physical Therapy PLLC, Alford A. Smith MD, PC, and Metro Pain Specialists, PC, and defendant M & M Supplies Group, Inc., separately cross-move under CPLR 3012 (d) to extend defendants’ time to answer, and to compel acceptance of defendant’s late answer, respectively.

Liberty Mutual’s motion for default judgment is denied; defendants’ cross-motions are [*2]granted.

DISCUSSION

I. Liberty Mutual’s Motion for Default Judgment

To obtain a default judgment, a plaintiff must among other things submit nonhearsay proof of all the facts necessary to establish its prima facie entitlement to relief. (See CPLR 3215 [f]; Joosten v Gale, 129 AD2d 531, 535 [1st Dept 1987]; Matter of Dyno v Rose, 260 AD2d 694, 698 [3d Dept 1999].) This court concludes that Liberty Mutual has not met that burden here.

Liberty Mutual’s request for declaratory relief rests on two different grounds. As to defendant Jackson (and his medical-provider assignees), Liberty Mutual contends that he failed to appear for a properly scheduled examination under oath (EUO), thereby breaching a condition precedent to coverage. As to defendants Martin and Bailey (and their medical-provider assignees), Liberty Mutual contends, in essence, that it has good reason to believe that Martin and Bailey helped stage the collision that putatively gave rise to their need for medical treatment, which is a proper ground for denying coverage.

A. Liberty Mutual’s Denial of Coverage as to Defendant Jackson and His Assignees

A no-fault insurer seeking a declaration of no coverage due to asserted violations of the terms of the policy must first demonstrate that it complied with each of the procedural and timeliness requirements of 11 NYCRR § 65-3.5, governing the handling of no-fault claims. (See American Transit Ins. Co. v Longevity Med. Supply, Inc., 131 AD3d 841, 841 [1st Dept 2015].) Liberty Mutual has not satisfied that requirement here. Among other things, § 65-3.5 provides that once an insurer receives a claim for benefits, the insurer has 10 business days to provide the claimant with the forms necessary to verify the claim. (See 11 NYCRR § 65-3.5 [a].) Once the insurer receives the completed verification forms, it then has 15 business days to seek further verification, for example through requesting a claimant to appear for an EUO. (See id. § 65-3.5 [b].) A claimant’s failure without reasonable cause to appear for a properly scheduled EUO is grounds to deny coverage.

As to Jackson, Liberty Mutual has not submitted evidence establishing when it first received a claim for benefits from him or from one of his treating providers, when it provided the necessary verification forms, or when it first received one of those forms back. Absent this evidence, Liberty Mutual cannot show that it timely complied with the procedural requirements of § 65-3.5. At most, Liberty Mutual submits an affidavit of a claims manager, stating in relevant part that based on her knowledge of Liberty Mutual’s procedures and review of Jackson’s claim file, “[a]ll verification requests and denials were timely mailed.”^[FN1] This brief and conclusory statement is not sufficient.

Additionally, Liberty Mutual fails to show that Jackson was properly notified of the scheduled EUOs. Liberty Mutual submits copies of two scheduling letters together with affidavits of service attesting to their mailing. Neither affidavit, however, is signed or dated; and the notarization blank on each affidavit is not filled in. (See NYSCEF No. 11 at 4, 8.) The [*3]affidavits, therefore, are defective.^[FN2] They cannot establish that the scheduling letters were properly mailed. (See Levine v Health First, 147 AD3d 1193, 1195 [3d Dept 2017].) Nor does Liberty Mutual provide any other evidence (in affidavit form or otherwise) that might remedy this deficiency.

Liberty Mutual thus has failed on this motion to provide facts establish a prima facie case that defendant Jackson failed to appear for timely and properly scheduled EUOs, as required to support Liberty Mutual’s request for a declaration of no coverage. Liberty Mutual’s motion for default judgment against Jackson and his assignees is denied.

B. Liberty Mutual’s Denial of Coverage as to Defendants Martin and Bailey and Their Assignees

A no-fault insurer seeking a declaration of no coverage on default based on a conclusion that the underlying collision was staged must establish prima facie the “fact or founded belief that the alleged injury does not arise out of an insured incident.” (Central Gen. Hosp. v Chubb Grp. of Ins. Cos., 90 NY2d 195, 199 [1997].)

Here, Liberty Mutual submits an affidavit from a claims investigator familiar with the case to support its conclusion that the collision was not genuine. That affidavit, in turn, relies heavily on the transcripts from the EUOs of Martin and Bailey. But Liberty Mutual fails to show that those transcripts are admissible. In particular, the transcripts are not signed; and Liberty Mutual does not attempt to establish that it ever provided them to Martin and Bailey to review and sign, as required by CPLR 3116 (a). (See Ramirez v Willow Ridge Country Club, 84 AD3d 452, 453 [1st Dept 2011] [noting that the proponent of a deposition transcript bears the burden to show compliance with CPLR 3116 (a)].)

At least for purposes of this motion, therefore, key portions of the affidavit of Liberty Mutual’s claims investigator are based only on hearsay, and are thus insufficient to support the entry of a default judgment. (See Martinez v Reiner, 104 AD3d 477, 478 [1st Dept 2013]; Zelnik v Bidermann Indus. U.S.A., Inc., 242 AD2d 227, 228 [1st Dept 1997].) The claim by Liberty Mutual’s claims investigator in her affidavit that “the facts and circumstances surrounding the accident are indicative of no-fault fraud patterns, specifically a staged accident” is merely conclusory. To be sure, the affidavit does state that Martin and Bailey had previously been in similar accidents together before, which might be probative on the question of whether the collision here was fake. But the affidavit neither provides any details to support this statement nor identifies the basis of this statement beyond it having been “revealed” by an “investigation.”

On this record, therefore, Liberty Mutual has not established prima facie a founded belief that Martin and Bailey were engaged in no-fault insurance fraud rather than being genuine victims of a car accident. Liberty Mutual’s motion for default judgment against Martin and Bailey (and their respective assignees) is denied.

II. Defendants’ Cross-Motions Regarding Their Answers

In addition to opposing Liberty Mutual’s default-judgment motion, defendants Agyal Physical Therapy PLLC, Alford A. Smith MD, PC, and Metro Pain Specialists, PC, and defendant M & M Supplies Group, Inc., separately cross-move under CPLR 3012 (d) to, in [*4]effect, permit them to answer Liberty Mutual’s complaint. The cross-motions are granted.

The moving defendants’ cross-motions are based on CPLR 317, which permits a defendant to appear and defend the action if “he did not personally receive notice of the summons in time to defend and has a meritorious defense.” These defendants provide affidavits attesting to their lack of receipt of Liberty Mutual’s summons and complaint. For the reasons described above, the moving defendants have a potentially meritorious defense. And although the question is a close one in the circumstances of this case, this court concludes that moving defendants’ affidavits sufficiently establish that they did not personally receive timely notice of the summons.

Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED that Liberty Mutual’s motion for default judgment under CPLR 3215 is denied; and it is further

ORDERED that the cross-motion of defendants Agyal Physical Therapy PLLC, Alford A. Smith MD, PC, and Metro Pain Specialists, PC, under CPLR 3012 (d) to extend their time to answer is granted nunc pro tunc, and the answer dated December 6, 2019 is deemed timely served and filed; and it is further

ORDERED that the cross-motion of defendant M & M Supplies Group, Inc., under CPLR 3012 (d) to compel Liberty Mutual to accept its proposed answer dated January 6, 2020, is granted.

Dated: May 4, 2020

Hon. Gerald Lebovits, J.S.C.

Footnotes

Footnote 1:Liberty Mutual’s reply affirmation also attaches what appears to be an NF-3 verification form from one of Jackson’s treating providers. But the affirmation does not offer any information or representations to authenticate the attached verification form. Nor does the affirmation indicate whether this was the first verification form received back by Liberty Mutual.

Footnote 2:By contrast, the affidavit of additional mailing in support of Liberty Mutual’s motion for default judgment—completed by the same person who prepared the affidavits of service for the the EUO scheduling letters—is properly signed, dated, and notarized. (See NYSCEF No. 8 at 2.)

Index No. 150643/2019

The Law Office of Daniel J. Tucker, Brooklyn, NY (R. Jacob Lamar of counsel), for plaintiff.

Zara Javakov, Esq., P.C., Brooklyn, NY (Victoria Tarasova of counsel), for defendants Dos Manos Chiropractic, P.C., Jules Francois Parisien, M.D., and Medigna Inc.

This motion concerns the potential obligation to pay no-fault insurance benefits of plaintiff American Transit Insurance Company. Defendant Albert Hayes was a passenger in a vehicle that was involved in a collision. The vehicle was covered by a no-fault insurance policy [*2]issued by American Transit. Hayes applied for no-fault benefits, which American Transit denied.

In this action, American Transit seeks a declaratory judgment that it is not required to pay no-fault benefits to Hayes or to the other defendants (medical providers acting as Hayes’s assignees). American Transit now moves for summary judgment on this claim under CPLR 3212 as against those defendants who have appeared in the action, and moves for default judgment under CPLR 3215 as against the remaining, non-appearing defendants. The motion is denied.

A no-fault insurer seeking a declaration of no coverage due to asserted violations of the terms of the policy must first demonstrate that it complied with each of the procedural and timeliness requirements of 11 NYCRR § 65-3.5, governing the handling of no-fault claims. (See American Transit Ins. Co. v Longevity Med. Supply, Inc., 131 AD3d 841, 841 [1st Dept 2015].) American Transit has not satisfied that requirement here. Among other things, § 65-3.5 provides that once an insurer receives a claim for benefits, the insurer has 10 business days to provide the claimant with the forms that it requires for verification of the claim. (See 11 NYCRR § 65-3.5 [a].) Once the insurer receives the completed verification forms, it then has 15 business days to request further verification, such as an independent medical examination. (See id. § 65-3.5 [b].)

Here, the record reflects that American Transit received an NF-2 benefits claim form from Hayes at the end of April 2018. And the record reflects that American Transit requested in late July 2018 that Hayes appear for an independent medical examination. Yet there is nothing in the record (whether in the form of an affidavit or documentary evidence) that might establish when American Transit sent the necessary verification forms to Hayes, or when American Transit received the completed verification forms back from Hayes. Absent that information, American Transit has failed to satisfy all of the elements of its claim for declaratory relief.

American Transit thus is not entitled to summary judgment under CPLR 3212 against the answering defendants. Similarly, to obtain a default judgment against the non-appearing defendants American Transit is required to provide proof (such as an affidavit) of all the facts necessary to establish its prima facie entitlement to relief. (See CPLR 3215 [f]; Matter of Dyno v Rose, 260 AD2d 694, 698 [3d Dept 1999].) American Transit has not met that requirement here, and thus is not entitled to default judgment, either.

Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED that the branch of American Transit’s motion seeking summary judgment under CPLR 3212 against the answering defendants is denied; and it is further

ORDERED that the branch of American Transit’s motion seeking default judgment under CPLR 3215 against the non-appearing defendants is denied.

Date: 4/14/20