Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Pamela L. Fisher, J.), entered June 17, 2011.
Lof Med. Supply, Inc. v GEICO Gen. Ins. Co.
Decided on April 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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.
PRESENT: RIOS, J.P., WESTON and ALIOTTA, JJ
The order, insofar as appealed from, denied plaintiff's motion for summary judgment.
ORDERED that the order, insofar as appealed from, is reversed, with $30 costs, plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is granted, and the matter is remitted to the Civil Court for a calculation of statutory interest and an assessment of attorney's fees.
In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Civil Court as denied plaintiff's motion for summary judgment.
A no-fault provider establishes its prima facie case "by proof of the submission to the defendant of a claim form, proof of the fact and the amount of the loss sustained, and proof either that the defendant had failed to pay or deny the claim within the requisite 30-day period, or that the defendant had issued a timely denial of claim that was conclusory, vague or without merit as a matter of law" (Ave T MPC Corp. v Auto One Ins. Co., 32 Misc 3d 128[A], 2011 NY Slip Op 51292[U], *1 [App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2011]; see Westchester Med. Ctr. v Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 78 AD3d 1168 ).
In its motion, plaintiff established the submission of the two claim
forms at issue, by annexing the denials which admitted the receipt of
those claim forms (see East Acupuncture, P.C. v Electric Ins. Co., 16
Misc 3d 128[A], 2007 NY Slip Op 51281[U] [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2007]; Oleg Barshay,
D.C., P.C. v State Farm Ins. Co., 14 Misc 3d 74 [App Term, 2d
& 11th Jud Dists 2006]). Contrary to defendant's argument on appeal, plaintiff also established
that the claim forms at issue were admissible for the truth of the transactions recorded therein,
pursuant to CPLR 4518 (a), thereby making a prima facie showing of the fact and the amount of the
loss sustained. Moreover, plaintiff demonstrated that defendant's proffered defense of lack of medical
necessity was without merit as a matter of law, in that the Civil Court had issued a prior order precluding
defendant from offering any evidence in support of its claimed defense. In opposition to the motion, defendant
failed to raise a triable issue of fact.
Accordingly, the order, insofar as appealed from, is reversed, plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is granted, and the matter is remitted to the Civil Court for a calculation of statutory interest and an assessment of attorney's fees pursuant to Insurance Law § 5106 and the regulations promulgated thereunder.
Rios, J.P., Weston and Aliotta, ...