Great Wall Acupuncture, P.C. v New York Central Mutual Insurance Company |
2009 NY Slip Op 50224(U) [22 Misc 3d 133(A)] |
Decided on February 10, 2009 |
Appellate Term, Second Department |
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. |
As corrected in part through February 23, 2009; it will not be published in the printed Official Reports. |
Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Diane A.
Lebedeff, J.), entered November 15, 2007, deemed from a judgment of the same court entered
December 14, 2007 (see CPLR 5501 [c]). The judgment, entered pursuant to the November 15,
2007 order which denied defendant's motion for summary judgment and granted plaintiff's cross
motion for summary judgment, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $3,330.
Judgment affirmed without costs.
In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, defendant moved for summary judgment on the ground that it timely denied plaintiff's claims based on plaintiff's owner's failure to appear for scheduled examinations under oath (EUOs). Plaintiff opposed the motion and cross-moved for summary judgment. By order entered November 16, 2007, the Civil Court denied defendant's motion for summary judgment and granted plaintiff's cross motion for summary judgment, finding that defendant did not comply with the EUO scheduling regulations, since the initial EUO was not scheduled within 30 days of defendant's receipt of plaintiff's claims. A judgment was subsequently entered. This appeal by defendant ensued.
Defendant's contention that plaintiff failed to make out a prima facie case entitling it to summary judgment is without merit. A provider generally establishes its prima facie entitlement to summary judgment by proof of the submission of a statutory claim form, setting forth the fact and the amount of the loss sustained, and that payment of no-fault benefits was overdue (see Insurance Law § 5106 [a]; Mary Immaculate Hosp. v Allstate Ins. Co., 5 AD3d 742 [2004]). In addition, the affidavit submitted by a provider in support of its summary judgment motion must [*2]lay a sufficient foundation to establish that the annexed documents constitute evidence in admissible form (see Art of Healing Medicine, P.C. v Travelers Home & Mar. Ins. Co., 55 AD3d 644 [2008]; Dan Med., P.C. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 14 Misc 3d 44 [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2006]). In the instant case, the affidavit submitted by plaintiff's billing manager was sufficient to establish that she possessed personal knowledge of plaintiff's practices and procedures so as to lay a foundation for the admission, as business records, of the documents annexed to plaintiff's moving papers. Further, any deficiency in plaintiff's moving papers regarding proof of mailing of the claim forms was cured by defendant's claim denial forms and the affidavit of defendant's no-fault litigation examiner, in which receipt of the claims in question was conceded (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]). Accordingly, plaintiff made a prima facie showing of its entitlement to summary judgment.
In support of its motion for summary judgment and in opposition to plaintiff's cross motion for summary judgment, defendant asserted that it timely denied plaintiff's claims based on plaintiff's owner's failure to appear for scheduled examinations under oath (EUOs). However, a review of the record indicates that defendant failed to timely request the EUO after receiving plaintiff's bills (see Insurance Department Regulations [11 NYCRR] §§ 65-3.5 [b]; 65-3.6 [b]). As a result, defendant's time to pay or deny plaintiff's claim was not tolled (see Insurance Department Regulations [11 NYCRR] § 65-3.8 [c]). Consequently, defendant is precluded from, inter alia, relying upon plaintiff's failure to appear at an EUO as a defense to this action (see Presbyterian Hosp. in City of N.Y. v Maryland Cas. Co., 90 NY2d 274, 282 [1997]; Rigid Med. of Flatbush, P.C. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 11 Misc 3d 139[A], 2006 NY Slip Op 50582[U] [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2006]). Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed, albeit on other grounds.
Pesce, P.J., Weston Patterson and Steinhardt, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: February 10, 2009