SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK APPELLATE TERM: 2nd, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS Appellate Term, Second Department
November 30, 2011
MEGACURE ACUPUNCTURE, P.C. AS ASSIGNEE OF JESSE RUTLEDGE,
CLARENDON NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY,
Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Margaret Pui Yee Chan, J.), entered October 23, 2009.
Megacure Acupuncture, P.C. v Clarendon Natl. Ins. Co.
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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 November 30, 2011
PRESENT: PESCE, P.J., RIOS and STEINHARDT, JJ
The order denied defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and granted plaintiff's cross motion for summary judgment.
ORDERED that the order is modified by providing that plaintiff's cross motion for summary judgment is denied; as so modified, the order is affirmed, without costs.
In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, defendant appeals from an order denying its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and granting plaintiff's cross motion for summary judgment, arguing that it had properly reimbursed plaintiff the amount to which plaintiff was entitled for the acupuncture services it had rendered, by using the workers' compensation medical fee schedule.
In support of its motion, defendant submitted an affidavit by an employee of its claims division, which was sufficient to establish that the verification requests and denial of claim forms had been timely mailed in accordance with defendant's standard office practices and procedures (see St. Vincent's Hosp. of Richmond v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 50 AD3d 1123 ; Delta Diagnostic Radiology, P.C. v Chubb Group of Ins., 17 Misc 3d 16 [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2007]), but which was insufficient to establish defendant's contention that the amounts charged by plaintiff for the acupuncture services rendered exceeded the relevant rates set forth in the workers' compensation fee schedule. The applicable portion of the fee schedule was not annexed to defendant's papers. While courts are permitted to take judicial notice of the workers' compensation fee schedule (see LVOV Acupuncture, P.C. v Geico Ins. Co., 32 Misc 3d 144[A], 2011 NY Slip Op 51721 [U] [App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2011]; Natural Acupuncture Health, P.C. v Praetorian Ins. Co., 30 Misc 3d 132[A], 2011 NY Slip Op 50040[U] [App Term, 1st Dept 2011]; see also Kingsbrook Jewish Med. Ctr.v Allstate Ins. Co., 61 AD3d 13, 20 ), a party seeking to have the court take judicial notice should provide the court with sufficient information to permit the court to take judicial notice and should advise the adverse party of the request for judicial notice (CPLR 4511 [b]). Inasmuch as that was not done here, we decline to take judicial notice of the workers' compensation fee schedule in this case. Accordingly, with respect to the acupuncture services rendered by its licensed acupuncturist for the acupuncture sessions from August 7, 2006 through September 21, 2006, the Civil Court properly denied defendant's motion for summary judgment. Likewise, the Civil Court properly denied defendant's motion for summary judgment to the extent that it sought dismissal of plaintiff's claim for the initial acupuncture visit of August 4, 2006, as defendant did not proffer sufficient evidence to warrant the dismissal thereof (see Raz Acupuncture, P.C. v AIG Indem. Ins. Co., 28 Misc 3d 127[A], 2010 NY Slip Op 51177[U] [App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2010]).
Plaintiff, however, was not entitled to summary judgment on its cross motion, as it failed to establish that there was an untimely denial or that the denial was conclusory, vague or otherwise defective (see Westchester Med. Ctr. v Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 78AD3d 1168 ). Accordingly, the order is modified by providing that plaintiff's cross motion for summary judgment is denied.
Pesce, P.J., Rios and Steinhardt, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: November 30, 2011
© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.