October 15, 2013

Alev Med. Supply, Inc. v Travelers Home & Mar. Ins. Co. (2013 NY Slip Op 51759(U))

Headnote

The court considered a provider's attempt to recover first-party no-fault benefits, with the defendant arguing lack of medical necessity as a defense. The main issue was whether the peer review report relied upon by the defendant was admissible, as the plaintiff argued that the signature on the report was stamped and therefore inadmissible. The court held that the plaintiff's assertion, without any indication as to why they believed the signature was stamped, was insufficient to raise an issue of fact, and therefore affirmed the judgment in favor of the defendant.

Reported in New York Official Reports at Alev Med. Supply, Inc. v Travelers Home & Mar. Ins. Co. (2013 NY Slip Op 51759(U))

Alev Med. Supply, Inc. v Travelers Home & Mar. Ins. Co. (2013 NY Slip Op 51759(U)) [*1]

Alev Med. Supply, Inc. v Travelers Home & Mar. Ins. Co.

2013 NY Slip Op 51759(U) [41 Misc 3d 132(A)]

Decided on October 15, 2013

Appellate Term, Second 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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 October 15, 2013

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

PRESENT: : PESCE, P.J., ALIOTTA and SOLOMON, JJ
2011-3167 Q C.

Alev Medical Supply, Inc. as Assignee of MARIA ONATIVIA, Appellant, —
against
Travelers Home & Marine Insurance Company, Respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Rudolph E. Greco, Jr., J.), entered September 6, 2011, deemed from a judgment of the same court entered November 29, 2011 (see CPLR 5501 [c]). The judgment, entered pursuant to the September 6, 2011 order granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment, dismissed the complaint.

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

In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Civil Court which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, finding that defendant had demonstrated, prima facie, its lack of medical necessity defense and that plaintiff had not rebutted defendant’s prima facie showing. A judgment was subsequently entered, from which the appeal is deemed to have been taken (see CPLR 5501 [c]).

Plaintiff’s only argument, both before the Civil Court and on appeal, is that the peer review report relied upon by defendant contained a stamped signature and, as a result, it was inadmissible. We find that plaintiff’s assertion, without any indication as to why plaintiff believed that the signature was a stamped signature, was insufficient to raise an issue of fact (see Manhattan Med. Imaging, P.C. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 32 Misc 3d 127[A], 2011 NY Slip Op 51230[U] [App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists]). Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

Pesce, P.J., Aliotta and Solomon, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: October 15, 2013