Opinion
2008-467 Q C.
Decided on March 10, 2009.
Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Timothy J. Dufficy, J.), entered December 12, 2007. The order, insofar as appealed from as limited by the brief, denied plaintiff's motion for summary judgment.
Order, insofar as appealed from, reversed without costs, plaintiff's motion for summary judgment granted and matter remanded to the Civil Court for the calculation of statutory interest and an assessment of attorney's fees.
PRESENT: PESCE, P.J., RIOS and STEINHARDT, JJ.
In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, plaintiff moved for summary judgment. Defendant cross-moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and, in opposition to plaintiff's motion, argued that plaintiff did not make a prima facie showing and, in any event, plaintiff's assignor failed to appear for independent medical examinations (IMEs). The Civil Court denied both motions. As limited by its brief, plaintiff appeals from the denial of its motion for summary judgment.
A provider establishes its prima facie entitlement to summary judgment by proof of the submission of a statutory claim form, setting forth the fact and the amount of the loss sustained, and that payment of no-fault benefits was overdue ( see Insurance Law § 5106 [a]; Mary Immaculate Hosp. v Allstate Ins. Co. , 5 AD3d 742). In the instant case, any deficiency in plaintiff's moving papers regarding proof of mailing of the claim forms was cured by defendant's claim denial forms, and the affidavit of defendant's claims representative in which receipt of the claims in question was conceded ( see East Acupuncture, P.C. v Electric Ins. Co. , 16 Misc 3d 128[A], 2007 NY Slip Op 51281[U] [App Term, 2d 11th Jud Dists 2007]; Oleg Barshay, D.C., P.C. v State Farm Ins. Co. , 14 Misc 3d 74 [App Term, 2d 11th Jud Dists 2006]). We note that the affidavit submitted by plaintiff's billing manager sufficed to establish that the annexed claim forms constituted evidence in admissible form ( see CPLR 4518; Dan Med., P.C. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. , 14 Misc 3d 44 [App Term, 2d 11th Jud Dists 2006]). Consequently, the record establishes plaintiff's prima facie entitlement to summary judgment.
While defendant asserts that it timely denied plaintiff's claim based on the assignor's failure to appear for two scheduled IMEs, defendant failed to establish by proof in admissible form that the IME requests were timely mailed to the assignor and that the assignor failed to appear for the IMEs ( see Stephen Fogel Psychological, P.C. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co. , 35 AD3d 720). Consequently, plaintiff's motion for summary judgment should have been granted. We reach no other issue.
Accordingly, plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is granted and the matter is remanded to the Civil Court for the calculation of statutory interest and an assessment of attorney's fees pursuant to Insurance Law § 5106 (a) and the regulations promulgated thereunder.
Pesce, P.J., Rios and Steinhardt, JJ., concur.