Opinion
2008-2040 Q C.
Decided January 12, 2010.
Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Diane A. Lebedeff, J.), entered October 7, 2008, deemed from a judgment of the same court entered November 5, 2008 (see CPLR 5501 [c]). The judgment, entered pursuant to the October 7, 2008 order granting plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $656.91.
ORDERED that the judgment is reversed without costs, the order entered October 7, 2008 is vacated, plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is denied and, upon searching the record, summary judgment is granted to defendant dismissing the complaint.
PRESENT: WESTON, J.P., GOLIA and STEINHARDT, JJ.
In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, plaintiff moved for summary judgment. Defendant opposed the motion on the ground that it had properly reimbursed plaintiff for licensed acupuncture services at the rate consistent with the amount paid for acupuncture services provided by licensed chiropractors. The Civil Court granted plaintiff's motion, holding that defendant had failed to demonstrate that it had issued timely denials of the claims. This appeal by defendant ensued. A judgment was subsequently entered, from which the appeal is deemed to be taken ( see CPLR 5501 [c]).
On appeal, defendant's sole contention with respect to plaintiff's prima facie case is that the affidavit of plaintiff's billing manager failed to establish that the documents annexed to plaintiff's motion for summary judgment were admissible as business records. Upon our review of the record, we find that the affidavit was sufficient to establish that the documents annexed to plaintiff's moving papers were admissible pursuant to CPLR 4518 ( see Art of Healing Medicine, P.C. v Travelers Home Mar. Ins. Co. , 55 AD3d 644 ; Dan Med., P.C. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. , 14 Misc 3d 44 [App Term, 2d 11th Jud Dists 2006]).
Defendant established through the affidavit of its claims division employee that it had timely mailed the denial of claim forms to plaintiff, by setting forth the office practices or procedures used to ensure that such items are properly addressed and mailed ( see Residential Holding Corp. v Scottsdale Ins. Co., 286 AD2d 679; Delta Diagnostic Radiology, P.C. v Chubb Group of Ins. , 17 Misc 3d 16 , 18 [App Term, 2d 11th Jud Dists 2007]).
For the reasons stated in Great Wall Acupuncture, P.C. v GEICO Ins. Co. ( ___ Misc 3d ___, 2009 NY Slip Op 29467 [App Term, 2d, 11th 13th Jud Dists 2009]), it was proper for defendant to use the workers' compensation fee schedule for acupuncture services performed by chiropractors to determine the amount which plaintiff was entitled to receive for the acupuncture services rendered by its licensed acupuncturist. Furthermore, since it is undisputed that defendant has fully paid plaintiff the amount to which plaintiff is entitled under the workers' compensation fee schedule for acupuncture services performed by chiropractors, it is appropriate for this court to search the record and grant summary judgment to defendant dismissing the action ( see Merritt Hill Vineyards v Windy Hgts. Vineyard, 61 NY2d 106; AVA Acupuncture, P.C. v GEICO Gen. Ins. Co. , 17 Misc 3d 41 , 43 [App Term, 2d 11th Jud Dists 2007]).
Weston, J.P., Golia and Steinhardt, JJ., concur.