Opinion
No. 2010–2811 K C.
2013-01-14
ALFA MEDICAL SUPPLIES as Assignee of Altagracia Franco, Appellant, v. GEICO GENERAL INS. CO., Respondent.
Present: PESCE, P.J., WESTON and RIOS, JJ.
Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Margaret A. Pui Yee Chan, J.), entered June 15, 2010. The order, insofar as appealed from as limited by the brief, granted defendant's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The appeal is deemed to be from a judgment of the same court entered September 21, 2010 dismissing the complaint (see CPLR 5501[c] ).
ORDERED that the judgment is reversed, with $30 costs, so much of the order as granted defendant's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is vacated, and defendant's cross motion is denied.
In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, plaintiff appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Civil Court as granted defendant's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. A judgment was subsequently entered, from which this appeal is deemed to have been taken ( seeCPLR 5501[c] ).
The affidavit submitted by defendant in support of its cross motion for summary judgment established that defendant had timely mailed ( see St. Vincent's Hosp. of Richmond v. Government Empls. Ins. Co., 50 AD3d 1123 [2008];Delta Diagnostic Radiology, P.C. v. Chubb Group of Ins., 17 Misc.3d 16 [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2007] ) the denial of claim form at issue, which denied the claim on the ground of lack of medical necessity. Moreover, defendant annexed to its cross motion a sworn peer review report which set forth a factual basis and medical rationale for the determination that there was a lack of medical necessity for the supplies provided ( see e.g. Delta Diagnostic Radiology, P.C. v. Integon Natl. Ins. Co., 24 Misc.3d 136[A], 2009 N.Y. Slip Op 51502[U] [App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2009]; Delta Diagnostic Radiology, P.C. v. American Tr. Ins. Co., 18 Misc.3d 128[A], 2007 N.Y. Slip Op 52455[U] [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2007]; A. Khodadadi Radiology, P.C. v. N.Y. Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 16 Misc.3d 131[A], 2007 N.Y. Slip Op 51342[U] [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2007] ). Consequently, the burden shifted to plaintiff to rebut defendant's prima facie showing ( see Alur Med. Supply, Inc. v. Clarendon Natl. Ins. Co., 27 Misc.3d 132[A], 2010 N.Y. Slip Op 50700[U] [App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2010]; Pan Chiropractic, P.C. v. Mercury Ins. Co., 24 Misc.3d 136[A], 2009 N.Y. Slip Op 51495[U] [App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2009] ).
In opposition to defendant's cross motion, plaintiff submitted an affidavit of its doctor which sufficiently demonstrated the existence of a question of fact as to medical necessity ( see Quality Psychological Servs., P.C. v. Mercury Ins. Group, 27 Misc.3d 129[A], 2010 N.Y. Slip Op 50601[U] [App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2010]; Park Slope Med. & Surgical Supply, Inc. v. New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 22 Misc.3d 141[A], 2009 N.Y. Slip Op 50441 [U] [App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2009] ). In view of the foregoing, defendant's cross motion for summary judgment should have been denied ( see Zuckerman v. City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557 [1980] ).
Accordingly, the judgment is reversed, so much of the order as granted defendant's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is vacated, and defendant's cross motion is denied.