[*1] Decided on January 14, 2011

APPELLATE TERM OF THE SUPREME COURT, FIRST DEPARTMENT

PRESENT: Schoenfeld, J.P., Hunter, Jr., Torres, JJ
.

Defendant appeals from those portions of an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Bronx County (Elizabeth A. Taylor, J.), dated April 6, 2010, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the claims of plaintiffs Spring Medical, P.C. and Right Aid Diagnostic Medicine, P.C. Per Curiam.

Order (Elizabeth A. Taylor, J.), dated April 6, 2010, insofar as appealed from, modified to grant defendant summary judgment dismissing the claims of plaintiff Spring Medical, P.C.; as modified, order affirmed, without costs.

Defendant made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing plaintiff Spring Medical, P.C.’s claims for assigned first-party no-fault benefits. Defendant established through the affidavit of its claims examiner and excerpts from the Workers’ Compensation Medical Fee Schedule, which may be judicially noticed by this Court (see Kingsbrook Jewish Med. Ctr. v Allstate Ins. Co., 61 AD3d 13, 21 [2009]), that the fees Spring charged for the medical services it rendered to the assignor exceeded the relevant rates set forth in the fee schedule. In opposition, Spring failed to raise a triable issue regarding [*2]defendant’s interpretation of the fee schedule or calculation of the applicable fees. Therefore, defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing Spring’s claims — which sought the difference between the amount Spring charged for the services and payments defendant made to Spring pursuant to the fee schedule — should have been granted (see Cornell Med., P.C. v Mercury Cas. Co., 24 Misc 3d 58 [2009]).

Defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the claim of plaintiff Right Aid Diagnostic Medicine, P.C. based on lack of medical necessity was properly denied, since defendant did not demonstrate as a matter of law that it timely denied the claim within the statutory 30-day period (see Country-Wide Ins. Co. v Zablozki, 257 AD2d 506 [1999], lv denied 93 NY2d 809 [1999]) or that the 30-day period was tolled by a proper verification request (see Nyack Hosp. v Encompass Ins. Co., 23 AD3d 535 [2005]). We note in this connection that the reply affirmation submitted by Right Aid could not be considered for the purpose of showing a prima facie entitlement to summary judgment (see Batista v Santiago, 25 AD3d 326 [2006]).
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.
I concur
Decision Date: January 14, 2011

[*1] Decided on December 30, 2010

APPELLATE TERM OF THE SUPREME COURT, FIRST DEPARTMENT

PRESENT: McKeon, P.J., Schoenfeld, Shulman, JJ
570736/09.

Defendant, as limited by its brief, appeals from that portion of an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Bronx County (Raul Cruz, J.), entered March 18, 2009, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Per Curiam.

Order (Raul Cruz, J.), entered March 18, 2009, insofar as appealed from, reversed, without costs, defendant’s motion for summary judgment granted, and the complaint dismissed. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.

Defendant-insurer made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint, which asserted claims to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits. Defendant demonstrated, through the affirmed peer review report of a physician, that the medical supplies plaintiff-provider afforded to its assignor were not medically necessary (see generally CPT Medical Services, P.C. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 18 Misc 3d 87 [2007]). In this connection, we note that the physician opined that the medical supplies were not medically necessary because the assignor was already receiving both physical and chiropractic therapy for his injuries, treatment that the physician concluded was sufficient under the circumstances. In opposition, plaintiff, which did not submit any evidence regarding the medical necessity of the supplies, failed to raise a triable issue.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

McKeon, P.J., Schoenfeld, Shulman, JJ.

Enko Enterprises International, Inc., NY County Clerk’s No.
a/a/o Pena Felix, 570736/09
Plaintiff-Respondent, –
against-
Calendar No. 10-125
Clarendon National Insurance
Company,
Defendant-Appellant.
Defendant, as limited by its brief, appeals from that portion of an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Bronx County (Raul Cruz, J.), entered March 18, 2009, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
Per Curiam.
Order (Raul Cruz, J.), entered March 18, 2009, insofar as appealed from, reversed, without costs, defendant’s motion for summary judgment granted, and the complaint dismissed. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.
Defendant-insurer made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint, which asserted claims to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits. Defendant demonstrated, through the affirmed peer review report of a physician, that the medical supplies plaintiff-provider afforded to its assignor were not medically necessary (see generally CPT Medical Services, P.C. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 18 Misc 3d 87 [2007]). In this connection, we note that the physician opined that the medical supplies were not medically necessary because the assignor was already receiving both physical and chiropractic therapy for his injuries, treatment that the physician concluded was sufficient under the circumstances. In opposition, plaintiff, which did not submit any evidence regarding the medical necessity of the supplies, failed to raise a triable issue.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.
Decision Date: December 30, 2010

DECEMBER 30, 2010
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, FIRST DEPARTMENT
								May 2010 Term

Decision Date: December 30, 2010

Lenox Hill Radiology, P.C. v Tri-State Consumer Ins. Co.

2010 NY Slip Op 20530 [31 Misc 3d 13]

Accepted for Miscellaneous Reports Publication

AT1

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

As corrected through Wednesday, April 27, 2011

[*1]

Lenox Hill Radiology, P.C., as Assignee of Edward Bredy, Respondent, v Tri-State Consumer Insurance Company, Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department, December 30, 2010

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

Corigliano, Geiger & Verrill, Jericho, for appellant. Baker, Sanders, Barshay, Grossman, Fass, Muhlstock & Neuwirth, LLC, Mineola, for respondent.

{**31 Misc 3d at 14} OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

Judgment, entered on or about September 9, 2008, reversed, with $30 costs, and complaint dismissed.

Upon the trial of this action to recover payment of first-party no-fault benefits arising from plaintiff’s performance of four separate MRIs of plaintiff’s assignors, Civil Court awarded judgment in plaintiff’s favor in the principal amount of $4,390.16. The principal defense advanced by defendant insurer at trial was that plaintiff’s claims were premature because plaintiff had failed to respond to defendant’s verification requests (see 11 NYCRR 65-3.5 [b]; New York & Presbyt. Hosp. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 5 AD3d 568 [2004]). Upon review of the record, we conclude that defendant presented evidence of its office mailing practice sufficient to establish that the verification requests had been mailed and presumably received by plaintiff. In this posture, and in the absence of any claim or showing that plaintiff ever responded to defendant’s timely requests for verification, we reverse the judgment appealed from and dismiss the action as premature.

At trial, defendant presented the testimony of an experienced claims examiner, Jennifer Piccolo, who both personally prepared the initial and follow-up verification requests here at issue and possessed firsthand knowledge of defendant’s standard office mailing practice. The witness’s credible and consistent account of the mailing procedures generally followed by defendant, including how the mail was systematically picked up during the workday, when it would “go out,” and what steps would be taken if a verification letter was returned as undeliverable (an event which, the witness noted, did not occur here), “obviated the necessity of producing a witness with personal knowledge of the actual mailing” of defendant’s verification letters (see Badio{**31 Misc 3d at 15} v Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 12 AD3d 229, 230 [2004]). Nor was it incumbent upon defendant to produce a witness, such as a mail clerk or other clerical employee, whose duty [*2]it was to ensure compliance with its mailing procedures or who possessed personal knowledge of such compliance (see Delta Diagnostic Radiology, P.C. v Chubb Group of Ins., 17 Misc 3d 16 [2007]).

Having established its routine and reasonable office practice, defendant met its burden to establish that the verification letters were mailed to (and presumably received by) plaintiff. Plaintiff not only failed to produce any countervailing evidence to rebut the presumption of receipt, but has not at any time affirmatively denied receipt of the verification letters.

Before concluding, we would be remiss in failing to note that the facts and circumstances of this action do much to illustrate the disturbing reality that first-party no-fault benefits litigation has become the antithesis of what was supposed to be an expeditious and simplified process for the payment of medical costs for injuries sustained in motor vehicle accidents (see Walton v Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co., 88 NY2d 211, 214 [1996]). Too often, lawsuits with a value akin to a small claims action become bogged down by an insistence by one party or another that mailing of routine forms be established with scientific precision, asking judges, already burdened to the breaking point with the veritable legion of no-fault cases overflowing from our court dockets (while very able arbitrators remain underutilized), to require multiple witnesses to be summoned to the courthouse, merely to establish a presumption of mailing, even in the absence of an express denial of receipt of the disputed correspondence. Unfortunately, this class of cases has spawned a body of “gotcha” jurisprudence, marked by a near manic preoccupation with form over substance.

How we have reached this sorry state is of little moment. Perhaps all branches of government need to call a “time out” and, working together, endeavor to construct a workable process to achieve what the framers of the no-fault statute had in mind when they sought to establish a simplified and expeditious process to reimburse those of our citizenry injured in automobile accidents. For sure, the system now in place is not achieving that laudable aim.

Schoenfeld, J. (dissenting). I fully agree with the majority’s sentiment that it is time for a change in no-fault litigation, which has become overly protracted and wasteful. Clearly, a{**31 Misc 3d at 16} streamlined process that yields timely, substantive results to ensure reimbursement, when appropriate, is needed. In the present case, all that was required at trial was the testimony of an individual with knowledge of defendant’s standard mailing practice. As this was not done, however, I respectfully dissent and would affirm the trial judge’s finding in favor of plaintiff.

At trial, defendant did not dispute that it received plaintiff’s bills, but averred that plaintiff failed to respond to its request for verification. In support thereof, defendant offered the testimony of Jennifer Piccolo, an experienced claims examiner.

Ms. Piccolo testified to having reviewed plaintiff’s claims, and stated why further verification was needed. As a result, she prepared verification letters and placed them in “a bin slot . . . within the department,” to be “picked up by the clerical department.” She further testified that if mail was not delivered and came back to her office, the address would be checked, and if it was wrong, it would be corrected and re-mailed. However, Ms. Piccolo candidly admitted to not knowing the mailroom procedure:

“Q: Do you have personal knowledge of the actual policies of the people who handle that mail that’s returned?

[*3]

“A: Personal knowledge, yes.

“Q: Personal knowledge as in you observe them do their day to day job with respect to . . . receipt of mail returned?

“A: No.

“Q: Nor with any of their other responsibilities with respect to mailing, correct?

“A: Correct.”

It is well established that the decision of the fact-finding court should not be disturbed unless it is obvious that the court’s conclusion could not be reached under any fair interpretation of the evidence. (Frame v Maynard, 78 AD3d 508 [1st Dept 2010].) Further, the burden is on the insurer to establish proper and timely mailing of verification requests. (Westchester Med. Ctr. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 6 Misc 3d 1039[A], 2005 NY Slip Op 50348[U] [Nassau Dist Ct 2005]; see Lehrer McGovern Bovis, Inc. v Public Serv. Mut. Ins. Co., 268 AD2d 388 [1st Dept 2000].)

As noted in Badio v Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co. (12 AD3d 229, 230 [1st Dept 2004]): “An insurer is entitled to a presumption that a [request] was received when the proof exhibits an office practice and procedure . . . which shows that the [request has]{**31 Misc 3d at 17} been duly addressed and mailed.” (Emphasis added and internal quotation marks omitted.) In that case, “Liberty Mutual did present the testimony of an employee who possessed personal knowledge of the office mailing practice, including how the mail was picked up and counted, and how the names and addresses on each item were confirmed.” (Id.)

Clearly Ms. Piccolo, who placed her letters in a bin slot within her own particular department, did not know whether such letters were put in a postal box that day. Nor did she have personal knowledge regarding even the basic mailing practice and procedure of her company. In Westchester Med. Ctr. v Countrywide Ins. Co. (45 AD3d 676 [2d Dept 2007]), defendant contended that a claim for payment was premature because plaintiff failed to respond to its verification requests. However, the Court, in holding that the statements by a supervisor employed in defendant’s claims department were insufficient, noted that she “had no personal knowledge that the verification requests were actually mailed on the dates they were issued.” (Id. at 676.) The Court further stated that “her conclusory allegations regarding the defendant’s office practice and procedure failed to establish that [it] was designed to ensure that the verification requests were . . . properly mailed.” (Id. at 676-677; accord Modern Psychiatric Servs. P.C. v Progressive Ins. Co., 10 Misc 3d 145[A], 2006 NY Slip Op 50143[U] [App Term, 2d Dept 2006]; Careplus Med. Supply Inc. v Travelers Home & Mar. Ins. Co., 7 Misc 3d 133[A], 2005 NY Slip Op 50648[U] [App Term, 2d Dept 2005].)

Accordingly, the judgment in favor of plaintiff should not be disturbed.

McKeon, P.J., and Shulman, J., concur; Schoenfeld, J., dissents in a separate opinion.

[*1] Decided on December 7, 2010

APPELLATE TERM OF THE SUPREME COURT, FIRST DEPARTMENT

PRESENT: Hunter, Jr., J.P., McKeon, Shulman, JJ
570658/10.

Plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County (Arlene P. Bluth, J.), entered August 4, 2009, which granted defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and denied plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment.

Per Curiam.

Order (Arlene P. Bluth, J.), entered August 4, 2009, reversed, without costs, the order vacated and the matter remanded to Civil Court for a new determination of the parties’ respective motions for summary judgment following an application by plaintiffs to the Workers’ Compensation Board to determine their rights under the Workers’ Compensation Law.

In this action to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, defendant’s submissions in support of its cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint presented an issue of fact as to the applicability of the Workers’ Compensation Law to the subject loss, which defendant alleged occurred during the course of the assignor’s employment (see Dunn v American Tr. Ins. Co., 71 AD3d 629 [2010]; Arvatz v Empire Mut. Ins. Co., 171 AD2d 262 [1991]; cf. Westchester Med. Ctr. v American Tr. Ins. Co., 60 AD3d 848 [2009]). “Primary jurisdiction with respect to determinations as to the applicability of the Workers’ Compensation Law has been vested in the Workers’ Compensation Board” (Botwinick v Ogden, 59 NY2d 909, 911 [1983]). Therefore, resolution of the factual question presented on this record “is best suited for determination by the [Workers’ Compensation] Board, given its expertise in the area” (Arvatz, 171 AD2d at 269), and the parties’ respective summary judgment motions should have been held in abeyance pending a determination by the Workers’ Compensation Board as to the applicability of the Workers’ Compensation Law to plaintiffs’ claim (see Botwinick, supra; Dunn, supra; LMK [*2]Psychological Serv., P.C. v American Tr. Ins. Co., 64 AD3d 752 [2009]).

We note that, contrary to plaintiffs’ contention, Civil Court properly determined that defendant established that its denials were timely mailed within the prescribed 30-day period (see 11 NYCRR 65-3.8[a][1], [c]); cf. Westchester Med. Ctr. v Lincoln Gen. Ins. Co., 60 AD3d 1045 [2009], lv denied 13 NY3d 714 [2009]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.
I concur
Decision Date: December 07, 2010

[*1] Decided on December 3, 2010

APPELLATE TERM OF THE SUPREME COURT, FIRST DEPARTMENT

PRESENT: Shulman, J.P., McKeon, Schoenfeld, JJ
570595/10.

Defendant appeals from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Bronx County (Mitchell J. Danziger, J.), entered October 29, 2009, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Per Curiam.

Order (Mitchell J. Danziger, J.), entered October 29, 2009, reversed, without costs, and defendant’s motion for summary judgment granted. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of defendant dismissing the complaint.

Plaintiff-provider commenced this action to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits for medical supplies provided to its assignor. Defendant-insurer moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as premature on the ground that plaintiff failed to comply with defendant’s verification requests. In support of that motion, defendant submitted the affidavit of its claims examiner, in which he stated that (1) defendant received plaintiff’s claim on August 13, 2007; (2) defendant mailed verification requests on August 14, 2007, and follow-up requests on August 28, 2007 and September 28, 2007; and (3) plaintiff failed to respond to any of these requests. Civil Court denied the motion on the ground that the verification requests were issued “less than thirty (30) days apart in contravention of the regulations, thereby rendering them improper.” We reverse.
It is well settled that the 30-day period within which an insurer must pay or deny the claim is tolled until it receives the relevant verification requested (see Fair Price Med. Supply Corp. v Travelers Indem. Co., 10 NY3d 556, 563 [2008]). Plaintiff does not dispute that defendant mailed the verification requests, as well as the follow-up requests, and that plaintiff failed to respond. Although defendant’s September 28, 2007 follow-up request, issued 15 days after the expiration of the 30-day period within which plaintiff was required to respond to the initial August 14, 2007 verification request, did not strictly comply with the time limitation prescribed by the regulation (see 11 NYCRR 65-3.6[b]), this does not, under the circumstances presented here, deprive defendant of the benefit of the tolling of the 30-day period (see Infinity Health Prod., Ltd. v Eveready Ins. Co., 67 AD3d 862 [2009]; see also Westchester County Med. Ctr. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 262 AD2d 553 [1999]). Moreover, defendant’s “improper” follow-up request of August 28, 2007 (cf. Infinity Health Prod., Ltd., supra), does [*2]not vitiate the validity of the September 28, 2007 follow-up request. “[I]t would be incongruous to conclude that the insurance regulation regarding follow-up verification, or any other statute or rule, warrants a result which would, in effect, penalize an insurer who diligently attempts to obtain the information necessary to make a determination of a claim, and concomitantly, rewards a plaintiff who makes no attempt to even comply with the insurer’s requests” (id. at 865). Accordingly, since plaintiff did not respond to defendant’s verification requests, its action is premature, and defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as premature should have been granted.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.
Decision Date: December 03, 2010

Allstate Ins. Co. v Belt Parkway Imaging, P.C.

2010 NY Slip Op 08783 [78 AD3d 592]

November 30, 2010

Appellate Division, First Department

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

As corrected through Wednesday, January 19, 2011

Allstate Insurance Company et al., Respondents, v Belt Parkway Imaging, P.C., et al., Appellants, et al., Defendants.

—[*1] Hession Bekoff Cooper & LoPiccolo, LLP, Garden City (Jonathan M. Cader of counsel), and Baker, Sanders, Barshay, Grossman, Fass, Muhlstock & Neuwirth, Mineola (Todd Fass of counsel), for appellants. Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP, New York (William J. Natbony of counsel), for respondents.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Eileen Bransten, J.), entered March 26, 2009, which denied the motion by defendants Belt Parkway Imaging, P.C., Diagnostic Imaging, P.C., Metroscan Imaging, P.C., Parkway MRI, P.C. (the PC defendants) and Herbert Rabiner, M.D., for partial summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

“A provider of health care services is not eligible for reimbursement under section 5102(a) (1) of the Insurance Law if the provider fails to meet any applicable New York State or local licensing requirement” (11 NYCRR 65-3.16 [a] [12]). Pursuant to this regulation, the Court of Appeals held that “insurance carriers may withhold payment for medical services provided by fraudulently incorporated enterprises” (see State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v Mallela, 4 NY3d 313, 319, 321 [2005]). Mallela was decided on March 29, 2005. The Legislature subsequently enacted Insurance Law § 5109, which became effective on August 2, 2005.

There is no indication in section 5109 that the statute overrules Mallela. Nor is there any such indication in its legislative history, which “must be reviewed in light of the existing decisional law which the Legislature is presumed to be familiar with” (Matter of Knight-Ridder Broadcasting v Greenberg, 70 NY2d 151, 157 [1987]).

Section 5109 (a) states, “The superintendent, in consultation with the commissioner of health and the commissioner of education, shall by regulation, promulgate standards and procedures for investigating and suspending or removing the authorization for providers of health services to demand or request payment for health services as specified in” Insurance Law § 5102 (a) (1). However, the Superintendent of Insurance has issued no regulations pursuant to section 5109 (a). Thus, if—as defendants contend—only the Superintendent can take action against fraudulently incorporated health care providers, then no one can take such action. In light of the [*2]fact that “[t]he purpose of the regulations of which [11 NYCRR] 65-3.16 (a) (12) is a part was to combat fraud” (Allstate Ins. Co. v Belt Parkway Imaging, P.C., 33 AD3d 407, 409 [2006]), this would be an absurd result, and we reject it (McKinneys Cons Laws of NY, Book 1, Statutes § 145).

Defendants’ contention that plaintiffs fail to state a cause of action for unjust enrichment because they have not alleged that the services rendered by the PC defendants were medically unnecessary is without merit. Paragraph 1 of the second amended complaint alleges that “numerous unnecessary referrals were made subjecting many patients to unnecessary testing and/or radiation.” Concur—Gonzalez, P.J., Mazzarelli, Nardelli, Renwick and DeGrasse, JJ.

[*1] Decided on November 26, 2010

APPELLATE TERM OF THE SUPREME COURT, FIRST DEPARTMENT

PRESENT: Shulman, J.P., McKeon, Schoenfeld, JJ
570600/10.

Shulman, J.P., McKeon, Schoenfeld, JJ.

NY County Clerk’s No. 570600/10 Calendar No. 10-358 Triangle R Inc. a/a/o Danilo Cabarcas, Plaintiff-Respondent, -against- Praetorian Insurance Company, Defendant-Appellant. Defendant appeals from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Bronx County (Mitchell J. Danziger, J.), entered October 29, 2009, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Per Curiam. Order (Mitchell J. Danziger, J.), entered October 29, 2009, reversed, without costs, and defendant’s motion for summary judgment is granted. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of defendant dismissing the complaint. An insurer is not obligated to pay or deny a claim for no-fault benefits until it has received verification of all of the relevant information requested (see 11 NYCRR 65-3.8[b][3]; Hospital for Joint Diseases v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 44 AD3d 903 [2007]; Nyack Hosp. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 19 AD3d 569 [2005]). Inasmuch as it is undisputed that defendant-insurer never received a response to its verification requests for medical records, defendant established its prima facie entitlement to summary judgment dismissing the claim as premature (see Hospital for Joint Diseases, supra; Nyack Hosp., supra). In opposition, plaintiff-provider failed to raise a triable issue. As plaintiff correctly concedes on appeal, defendant’s issuance of a general, blanket denial of benefits arising from the subject loss based on the assignor’s failure to attend an independent medical examination was ineffective to deny the specific claim at issue (see generally A & S Med. v Allstate Ins. Co., 15 AD3d 170 [2005], affg 196 Misc 2d 322 [2003]). Therefore, we reject plaintiff’s contention that defendant’s issuance of the general, blanket denial precludes defendant from asserting, as an alternative defense, noncompliance with its verification requests (see Westchester County Med. Ctr. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 262 AD2d 553 [1999]). Plaintiff’s estoppel argument is unpreserved for appellate review, and, in any event, without merit. Plaintiff submitted no competent proof demonstrating that it was misled or that it detrimentally relied on the general, blanket denial. Moreover, any confusion on plaintiff’s part as [*2]to whether the general, blanket denial vitiated defendant’s entitlement to receive the verification requested “should have been addressed by further communication, not inaction” (id. at 555). THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT. I concur Decision Date: November 26, 2010

NOVEMBER 26, 2010
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, FIRST DEPARTMENT
								Nove mber 2010 Term

Defendant-Appellant.

Defendant appeals from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Bronx County (Mitchell J. Danziger, J.), entered October 29, 2009, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Per Curiam.

Order (Mitchell J. Danziger, J.), entered October 29, 2009, reversed, without costs, and defendant’s motion for summary judgment is granted. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of defendant dismissing the complaint.

An insurer is not obligated to pay or deny a claim for no-fault benefits until it has received verification of all of the relevant information requested (see 11 NYCRR 65-3.8[b][3]; Hospital for Joint Diseases v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 44 AD3d 903 [2007]; Nyack Hosp. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 19 AD3d 569 [2005]). Inasmuch as it is undisputed that defendant-insurer never received a response to its verification requests for medical records, defendant established its prima facie entitlement to summary judgment dismissing the claim as premature (see Hospital for Joint Diseases, supra; Nyack Hosp., supra). In opposition, plaintiff-provider failed to raise a triable issue.

As plaintiff correctly concedes on appeal, defendant’s issuance of a general, blanket denial of benefits arising from the subject loss based on the assignor’s failure to attend an independent medical examination was ineffective to deny the specific claim at issue (see generally A & S Med. v Allstate Ins. Co., 15 AD3d 170 [2005], affg 196 Misc 2d 322 [2003]). Therefore, we reject plaintiff’s contention that defendant’s issuance of the general, blanket denial precludes defendant from asserting, as an alternative defense, noncompliance with its verification requests (see Westchester County Med. Ctr. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 262 AD2d 553 [1999]).
Plaintiff’s estoppel argument is unpreserved for appellate review, and, in any event, without merit. Plaintiff submitted no competent proof demonstrating that it was misled or that it detrimentally relied on the general, blanket denial. Moreover, any confusion on plaintiff’s part as [*3]to whether the general, blanket denial vitiated defendant’s entitlement to receive the verification requested “should have been addressed by further communication, not inaction” (id. at 555).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.
I concur
Decision Date: November 26, 2010

[*1] Decided on November 26, 2010

APPELLATE TERM OF THE SUPREME COURT, FIRST DEPARTMENT

PRESENT: Shulman, J.P., McKeon, Schoenfeld, JJ
570501/10.

Defendant appeals from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Bronx County (Fernando Tapia, J.), entered April 15, 2010, which denied its motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaints.

Per Curiam.

Order (Fernando Tapia, J.), entered April 15, 2010, reversed, with $10 costs, defendant’s motions for summary judgment granted and the complaints dismissed. The Clerk is directed to enter judgement accordingly.

In a separate action commenced by defendant-insurer against various medical providers, including plaintiff herein, Supreme Court, Kings County (Richard Velasquez, J.), declared in a judgment resolving that action that defendant may deny all no-fault claims arising from injuries sustained by plaintiff’s assignor, Jarrod Ward, in a May 21, 2008 motor vehicle accident. Based upon this Supreme Court judgment, the underlying actions commenced by plaintiff to recover assigned, first-party no-fault benefits for medical services rendered to Jarrod Ward for injuries sustained in the May 21, 2008 accident are barred under the doctrine of res judicata (see SZ Med., P.C. v Erie Ins. Co., 24 Misc 3d 126[A], 2009 NY Slip Op 51221[U] [2009]). Notably, a different judgment in the underlying actions would destroy or impair rights established by the judgment rendered by Supreme Court, Kings County in the prior action (see Schuykill Fuel Corp. v Nieberg Realty Corp., 250 NY 304, 306-307 [1929]). Contrary to plaintiff’s claim, the Supreme Court judgment is a conclusive final determination, notwithstanding that it was entered on the default of plaintiff, since res judicata applies to a judgment taken by default that has not been vacated (see Trisingh Enters., Inc. v Kessler, 249 AD2d 45 [1998]; Robbins v Growney, 229 AD2d 356 [1996]). Therefore, Civil Court should have granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the underlying actions.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.
Decision Date: November 26, 2010

[*1] Decided on October 22, 2010

APPELLATE TERM OF THE SUPREME COURT, FIRST DEPARTMENT

PRESENT: McKeon, P.J., Schoenfeld, Hunter, Jr., JJ
570112/10.

McKeon, P.J., Schoenfeld, Hunter, Jr., JJ.

New Millenium Medical SupplyNY County Clerk’s No. 570112/10 a/a/o Gibson Stayman, Plaintiff-Respondent, against Calendar No. 10-106 Clarendon National Insurance Company, Defendant-Appellant. Defendant appeals from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County (Peter H. Moulton, J.), dated April 23, 2009, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Per Curiam. Order (Peter H. Moulton, J.), dated April 23, 2009, reversed, with $10 costs, motion granted and complaint dismissed. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly. Plaintiff’s cause of action to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits pursuant to a policy of insurance was not interposed within the applicable six-year statute of limitations (see Mandarino v Travelers Property Cas. Ins. Co., 37 AD3d 775 [2007]), since the cause of action accrued on the date the claim became overdue — here, 30 days after defendant’s receipt of the claim — not the date of defendant’s untimely denial of the claim (see Matter of Travelers Indem. Co. of Conn. v Glenwood Med., P.C., 48 AD3d 319 [2008]; Benson v Boston Old Colony Ins. Co., 134 AD2d 214 [1987], lv denied 71 NY2d 801 [1988]). Plaintiff’s reliance on Matter of Taggart v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (272 AD2d 222 [2000]) is misplaced, since that case involved a general denial of claim issued under 11 NYCRR 65.15(g)(2)(ii) (now 65-3.8[b][2]) terminating no-fault benefits on the ground that the claimant was no longer disabled, while the matter at bar involves the factually and legally distinct situation in which a specific claim for no-fault benefits has been submitted to an insurer for payment or denial. Therefore, the complaint should have been dismissed as time-barred (see Insurance Law § 5106[a]; 11 NYCRR 65-3.8[a][1]; Matter of Travelers Indem. Co. of Conn., supra; Benson, supra). THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT. Decision Date: October 22, 2010

10/22/2010
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, FIRST DEPARTMENT
								April 2010 Term

Defendant appeals from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County (Peter H. Moulton, J.), dated April 23, 2009, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Per Curiam.

Order (Peter H. Moulton, J.), dated April 23, 2009, reversed, with $10 costs, motion granted and complaint dismissed. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.

Plaintiff’s cause of action to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits pursuant to a policy of insurance was not interposed within the applicable six-year statute of limitations (see Mandarino v Travelers Property Cas. Ins. Co., 37 AD3d 775 [2007]), since the cause of action accrued on the date the claim became overdue — here, 30 days after defendant’s receipt of the claim — not the date of defendant’s untimely denial of the claim (see Matter of Travelers Indem. Co. of Conn. v Glenwood Med., P.C., 48 AD3d 319 [2008]; Benson v Boston Old Colony Ins. Co., 134 AD2d 214 [1987], lv denied 71 NY2d 801 [1988]). Plaintiff’s reliance on Matter of Taggart v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (272 AD2d 222 [2000]) is misplaced, since that case involved a general denial of claim issued under 11 NYCRR 65.15(g)(2)(ii) (now 65-3.8[b][2]) terminating no-fault benefits on the ground that the claimant was no longer disabled, while the matter at bar involves the factually and legally distinct situation in which a specific claim for no-fault benefits has been submitted to an insurer for payment or denial. Therefore, the complaint should have been dismissed as time-barred (see Insurance Law § 5106[a]; 11 NYCRR 65-3.8[a][1]; Matter of Travelers Indem. Co. of Conn., supra; Benson, supra).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.
Decision Date: October 22, 2010

[*1] Decided on September 21, 2010

APPELLATE TERM OF THE SUPREME COURT, FIRST DEPARTMENT

PRESENT: McKeon, P.J., Schoenfeld, Shulman, JJ
570448/09.

Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County (Peter H. Moulton, J.), entered on or about June 26, 2007, after a nonjury trial, in favor of plaintiff and awarding it damages in the principal sum of $878.67.

Per Curiam.

Judgment (Peter H. Moulton, J.), entered on or about June 26, 2007, reversed, without costs, and judgment directed in favor of defendant dismissing the complaint. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.

Plaintiff, a provider of radiology services, submitted a claim to defendant for medical services rendered to plaintiff’s assignor, Julia Higginbotham. The claim was denied on coverage grounds, defendant asserting that its records indicated that Higginbotham was a pedestrian struck by a vehicle owned and operated by Linell McWilliams (an insured of defendant) in the State of Louisiana, where there is no no-fault coverage or obligation to pay first-party benefits. At trial, defendant stipulated to plaintiff’s prima facie case, and the only issue litigated was defendant’s lack of coverage defense. In support of its defense, defendant called one witness, a senior underwriter. The court subsequently rendered judgment in favor of plaintiff and awarded it the damages sought in the complaint.

We disagree with the trial court’s conclusions that defendant’s lack of coverage defense was predicated solely on inadmissible hearsay and that defendant, to establish its lack of coverage defense, was obligated to produce a witness with personal knowledge of the underlying accident. Defendant’s witness, whose testimony showed that the subject accident occurred in Louisiana and involved a pedestrian (Higginbotham) who was struck by a motor vehicle owned and operated by a Louisiana driver (McWilliams), appropriately relied on the contents of the subject claims log, a business record which constitutes an exception to the hearsay rule.

Plaintiff’s listing of Higginbotham as the insured party on its claim form — an apparent clerical error — did not obligate defendant to conduct an exhaustive search to exclude the possibility that Higgingbotham was defendant’s insured, a status she never asserted to hold. While more than one insurer may be obligated to pay first-party no-fault benefits for a covered event (see Insurance Law § 5106[d]), the obligation remains upon the claimant, in the first [*2]instance, to supply sufficient information to an insurer in an NF-2 form to permit an insurer to determine whether the injured party is actually an insured. Not only did plaintiff fail to satisfy that obligation here, but plaintiff’s counsel readily admitted at trial that counsel had no inkling whether Higginbotham was defendant’s insured.

Since defendant demonstrated that the claim did not arise out of an insured incident, it established its lack of coverage defense (see generally Central Gen. Hosp. v Chubb Group of Ins. Cos., 90 NY2d 195 [1997]), and the complaint should have been dismissed.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.
Decision Date: September 21, 2010