Opinion
41550/05.
Decided March 30, 2006.
In this action brought to recover no-fault benefits, plaintiff moves for summary judgment in the sum of $3,383.38 plus statutory interest together with statutory attorney's fees.
The No-Fault Law provides for payments for medical services provided to a person injured as a result of an accident arising out of the use or operation of a motor vehicle. To recover first-party benefits, a claimant must demonstrate a prima facie entitlement to summary judgment by setting forth proof that it submitted a claim, the fact and amount of losses sustained, and that payment of benefits is overdue (see Insurance Law § 5106 [a]; Mary Immaculate Hosp. v. Allstate Ins. Co., 5 AD3d 742 [2nd Dept]).
In support of its motion, plaintiff submits an assignment of benefits form, denial of claim forms, and an affidavit from defendant's billing manager, Yelena Medvedik, stating that the carrier issued denials more than thirty days after receipt of the bills. The court finds plaintiff has established its prima facie entitlement to summary judgment. Therefore, the burden shifts to defendant to demonstrate a triable issue of fact to withstand summary judgment ( see Alvarez v. Prospect Hospital, 68 NY2d 320).
An untimely denial precludes defendant from interposing most defenses including the defense of lack of medical necessity ( Amaze Med. Supply, Inc. v. Eagle Insurance Co., 2 Misc 3d 139 [A], 2004 NY Slip Op 050279 [U] [App Term, 2d 11th Jud Dists]). However, an untimely denial does not preclude a defendant from asserting the defense that the injuries do not arise out of a covered accident or a defense premised on staged accident fraud ( see Central General Hosp. v. Chubb Group of Insurance Cos., 90 NY2d 195; Matter of Metro Med. Diagnostics v. Eagle Insurance Co., 293 AD2d 751). To withstand summary judgment, the insurer must come forward with proof in admissible form to establish the basis for its belief that there is no coverage ( see Mount Sinai Hospital v. Triboro Coach, Inc., 263 AD2d 11 [2nd Dept 1999]). A "founded belief" cannot be based upon unsubstantiated hypotheses and supposition ( see A.B. Medical Services v. Eagle Ins. Co., 3 Misc 3d 8 [App Term, 2d 11th Jud Dists 2003]).
The denial of claim forms state as the reason for denial: "Our investigation, including the results of a low impact study conducted by this company, has shown that the injuries you allege are not related to the motor vehicle accident of March 23, 2003, and are inconsistent with a collision of this nature. Therefore, our company hereby denies your entire no-fault claim based on the fact that the personal injuries do not arise out of the auto accident referred to above. The medical necessity of services provided has not been established." To support its claim of a lack of causal nexus between the accident and the injuries allegedly sustained in the accident of March 23, 2003, defendant submits the affidavit of Alfred Cipriani, a technical consultant employed by SEA Limited, a consulting company which prepared an accident analysis report (low impact study) for defendant. The accident analysis report accompanies the affidavit (Exhibit F, annexed to Affirmation in Opposition).
Plaintiff maintains defendant's proof does not constitute competent evidence sufficient to defeat its motion. Plaintiff argues Mr. Cipriani's affidavit is not in admissible form as it was executed in Maryland, before a Maryland notary, and fails to comply with CPLR 2309 (c). Furthermore, plaintiff states defendant has failed to offer any evidence that the automobile collision was based on fraud.
One opposing a motion for summary judgment must produce evidentiary proof in admissible form sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact. Here, in opposition to the motion, defendant relies upon an affidavit that is signed and notarized outside of New York and an accident analysis report which is annexed to the affidavit. The low impact study itself is unsworn and appears to incorporate hearsay evidence such as a Police Accident Report and refers to a transcript of a recorded statement of assignor Tumarov which is not annexed to the report.
Pursuant to CPLR 2309 (c):
"An oath or affirmation taken without the state shall be treated as if taken within the state if it is accompanied by such certificate or certificates as would be required to entitle a deed acknowledged without the state to be recorded within the state if such deed had been acknowledged before the officer who administered the oath or affirmation."
In Ford Motor Credit Company v. Prestige Gown Cleaning Services ( 193 Misc 2d 262 [Civ Ct, Queens County 2002]) the court noted the distinction between "a certificate of authentication which certifies the identity and authority of the person who took the acknowledgment of proof" and a certificate of conformity which "certifies that the manner in which the acknowledgment or proof was taken conforms with the laws of the appropriate jurisdiction." An affidavit that is signed and notarized outside New York State is required to be accompanied by a certificate of conformity ( see Discover Bank v. Kagan, 8 Misc 3d 134 [A], 2005 NY Slip Op 51171 [U] [App Term, 2nd 11th Jud Dists]; Citibank (S.D.) N.A. v. Suen, 11 Misc 3d 126 [A], 2005 NY Slip Op 52262 [U] [App Term, 2d 11th Jud Dists]; Boai Zhong Yi Acupuncture Services v. New York Central Mutual Fire Ins. Co., 8 Misc 3d 1011 [A], 2005 NY Slip Op 51058 [U] [Civ Ct, Queens County]).
Therefore, this court concurs with plaintiff and finds defendant has failed to submit any competent evidence to support its defense that the injuries are not related to the accident. The affidavit is insufficient pursuant to CPLR 2309 (c). The Accident Analysis Report is inadmissible on its own or as an attachment to the affidavit.
Accordingly, plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is granted. The clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of plaintiff in the sum of $3,383.38 together with statutory interest and attorney's fees.
This constitutes the decision and order of the Court.