December 31, 2014

Cortland Med. Supply, Inc. v 21st Century Centennial Ins. Co. (2014 NY Slip Op 51886(U))

Headnote

The court considered the defendant-insurer's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint from the plaintiff, who was appealing the denial of a claim for no-fault first-party benefits. The defendant-insurer made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment by demonstrating that it timely and properly denied the claim through the affidavits of employees detailing their mailing procedures and the peer review report of its orthopedic doctor, which stated that the medical supplies provided were not medically necessary. The court found that the plaintiff's opposition, consisting of an attorney's affirmation unaccompanied by any medical evidence or other competent proof, was insufficient to raise a triable issue as to medical necessity. Therefore, the court affirmed the order granting the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, with costs.

Reported in New York Official Reports at Cortland Med. Supply, Inc. v 21st Century Centennial Ins. Co. (2014 NY Slip Op 51886(U))

Cortland Med. Supply, Inc. v 21st Century Centennial Ins. Co. (2014 NY Slip Op 51886(U)) [*1]

Cortland Med. Supply, Inc. v 21st Century Centennial Ins. Co.

2014 NY Slip Op 51886(U) [46 Misc 3d 136(A)]

Decided on December 31, 2014

Appellate Term, First Department

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on December 31, 2014

SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT: Lowe, III, P.J., Schoenfeld, Hunter, Jr., JJ.
570781/14

Cortland Med. Supply, Inc., a/a/o Cristian Yax Garcia Plaintiff-Appellant,
against
21st Century Centennial Ins. Co. Defendant-Respondent.

Plaintiff appeals from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County (Jennifer G. Schecter, J.), entered September 18, 2013, which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Per Curiam.

Order (Jennifer G. Schecter, J.), entered September 18, 2013, affirmed with $10 costs.

The defendant-insurer made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that it timely and properly denied plaintiff’s claim for no-fault first-party benefits, through the affidavits of employees of its mailing center and of the entity which administers its no-fault claims, detailing their respective office mailing procedures, accompanied by a certificate of mailing (see Nassau Ins. Co. v Murray, 46 NY2d 828, 829 [1978]; Badio v Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 12 AD3d 229,330 [2004]), and the peer review report of its orthopedic doctor, which set forth a sufficient factual basis and medical rationale for her stated conclusion that the medical supplies provided by plaintiff to its assignor were not medically necessary (see Triangle R. Inc. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 32 Misc 3d 143[A], 2011 NY Slip Op 51663[U] [App Term, 1st Dept 2011]). Plaintiff’s opposition, consisting of an attorney’s affirmation unaccompanied by any medical evidence or other competent proof, was insufficient to raise a triable issue as to medical necessity (see Munoz v Hollingsworth, 18 AD3d 278, 279 [2005]; CPT Med. Servs., P.C. v NY Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 18 Misc 3d 87 [2007]).

Plaintiff’s remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

I concur I concur I concur
Decision Date: December 31, 2014