Defendant appeals from a "decision/order" and judgment of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County (Margaret A. Chan, J.), entered on or about May 1, 2012 and July 19, 2012, respectively, after a nonjury trial, in favor of plaintiff and awarding it damages in the principal sum of $8,803.50.

Per Curiam.

Judgment (Margaret A. Chan, J.), entered on or about July 19, 2012, affirmed, with $25 costs. Appeal from "decision/order" (Margaret A. Chan), entered on or about May 1, 2012, dismissed, without costs, as subsumed in the appeal from the aforesaid judgment.

A fair interpretation of the evidence supports the trial court's determination that plaintiff, an out-of-network medical service provider, was entitled to recover for examination and testing services rendered to defendant for which defendant failed to pay, despite timely demand. Indeed, defendant did not dispute that the services billed for were rendered, or the reasonableness of the amounts charged for each particular service. Nor did defendant adduce any competent expert medical proof to support her assertion that the services here in dispute were not medically necessary (see Mount Vernon Hosp. v Brennan, 21 Misc 3d 140[A], 2008 NY Slip Op 52358[U] [App Term, 2nd Dept 2008]; see generally Viacom Intl. v Midtown Realty Co., 193 AD2d 45, 55 [1993]).

The court properly rejected defendant's claim that plaintiff agreed to accept insurance payments in full settlement of the charges. Such assertion was belied by documentary evidence, consisting of the assignment of benefits form executed by defendant, by which she "agreed to pay, in a current manner, any balance of said professional service charges over and above th[e] insurance payment." On this record, the court appropriately declined to give effect to defendant's handwritten additions to the contraryappearing on one of the forms that she submitted to plaintiff. Nor do we find any basis to disturb the court's credibility-based rejection of defendant's unsubstantiated testimony that she made a $1,700 cash payment to plaintiff. [*2]

The evidentiary errors now alleged by defendant are unpreserved for our review (see CPLR §§ 4017, 5501[a][3]; Scherer v Equit. Life Assur. Socy. of the United States, 299 AD2d 301 [2002], lv denied 99 NY2d 609 [2003]), and in any event, the record discloses no evidentiary error warranting reversal. Moreover, a review of the record does not demonstrate that defendant was deprived of a fair trial (see Peralta v Grenadier Realty Corp., 84 AD3d 486, 487 [2011]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.
Decision Date: December 19, 2013