Opinion
2005-613 KC.
Decided May 24, 2006.
Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Arlene Bluth, J.), entered March 4, 2005. The order denied plaintiff's motion for summary judgment.
Order affirmed without costs.
PRESENT: PESCE, P.J., RIOS and BELEN, JJ.
In this action to recover first-party no-fault benefits for medical supplies furnished to its assignor, plaintiff moved for summary judgment. After defendant opposed the motion, the court denied plaintiff's motion, finding an issue of fact with regard to medical necessity. Plaintiff appeals, claiming that defendant's affirmed peer review report was inadmissible because it referred to unaffirmed reports prepared by doctors who treated plaintiff's assignor.
In Kearse v. New York City Tr. Auth. ( 16 AD3d 45, 51), the Appellate Division, Second Department, held that affirmed medical reports prepared by the defendants' doctors which referred to an unaffirmed magnetic imaging report prepared by plaintiff's doctor were sufficient to establish defendants' prima facie entitlement to summary judgment. Such affirmed reports are, therefore, likewise admissible in opposition to a motion for summary judgment to raise a triable issue of fact, as they did in the instant case. Accordingly, plaintiff's motion for summary judgment was properly denied.
Pesce, P.J., Rios and Belen, JJ., concur.