January 11, 2010
Globe Med. Care O.L.P.C. v Travelers Ins. Co. (2010 NY Slip Op 50020(U))
Headnote
Reported in New York Official Reports at Globe Med. Care O.L.P.C. v Travelers Ins. Co. (2010 NY Slip Op 50020(U))
Globe Med. Care O.L.P.C. v Travelers Ins. Co. |
2010 NY Slip Op 50020(U) [26 Misc 3d 129(A)] |
Decided on January 11, 2010 |
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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports. |
APPELLATE TERM OF THE SUPREME COURT, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT: Schoenfeld, J.P., Shulman, Hunter, JJ
570108/09.
against
Travelers Insurance Company, Defendant-Respondent.
Plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Bronx County (Julia I. Rodriguez, J.), entered on or about June 20, 2008, after a nonjury trial, in favor of defendant dismissing the complaint.
Per Curiam.
Judgment (Julia I. Rodriguez, J.), entered on or about June 20, 2008, reversed, with $30 costs, complaint reinstated, and judgment directed in favor of plaintiff in the principal sum of $3,072.08.
Civil Court erred in dismissing this action by plaintiff to recover first-party no-fault benefits at the close of the trial on the ground that plaintiff failed to file proof of service of the summons and complaint on defendant. At no point in the action did defendant assert that plaintiff failed to file an affidavit of service and, therefore, defendant waived any objection on that ground (see generally Ballard v HSBC Bank USA, 6 NY3d 658 [2006]; Harris v Niagara Falls Bd. of Educ., 6 NY3d 155 [2006]). In any event, the failure to file an affidavit of service under the former commencement-by-service system that governed when this action was commenced (see former CCA 409) did not warrant dismissal of the action; rather, such failure was an irregularity that was correctable nunc pro tunc (see former CCA 411; see also Lumberman’s Mut. Cas. Co. v Temco Serv. Indus., 209 AD2d 296 [1994]).
With respect to the merits of plaintiff’s action, as Civil Court properly recognized, plaintiff established a prima facie case to recover the first-party no-fault benefits it sought in its complaint. Since defendant failed to adduce any evidence on the issue of the medical necessity of the services rendered to plaintiff’s assignor, defendant’s only purported defense at trial, we direct judgment in plaintiff’s favor for the principal amount sought in the complaint.
We do not pass upon plaintiff’s request for statutory interest and attorneys’ fees, issues not reached below. Our disposition of this appeal is without prejudice to renewal of these issues in Civil Court.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.
Decision Date: January 11, 2010