Opinion
2009-2194 Q C.
Decided March 3, 2011.
Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Anna Culley, J.), entered August 3, 2009, deemed from a judgment of the same court entered October 5, 2009 (see CPLR 5501 [c]). The judgment, entered pursuant to the August 30, 2009 order granting defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and denying plaintiff's cross motion for summary judgment, dismissed the complaint.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs. In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the action was premature since plaintiff had failed to respond to its request for verification. Plaintiff cross-moved for summary judgment. The Civil Court granted defendant's motion and denied plaintiff's cross motion without prejudice. The instant appeal by plaintiff ensued.
PRESENT: PESCE, P.J., WESTON and RIOS, JJ.
On appeal, plaintiff asserts that it provided defendant with the NF-3 form it requested as additional verification. Plaintiff did not subsequently respond to defendant's follow-up request seeking the same verification because defendant failed to clearly state why the previously submitted NF-3 form was insufficient. Consequently, plaintiff argues, it is not in default in providing the requested verification.
A review of the record indicates that each of defendant's requests for NF-3 forms states, in pertinent part, that "Every box must be fully completed, blank boxes will not be accepted." It is uncontroverted that the box on the NF-3 form plaintiff provided in response to defendant's initial verification request — wherein the provider's signature should be placed — was left blank. Therefore, when defendant issued its follow-up request which, again, informed plaintiff that "Every box must be fully completed, blank boxes will not be accepted," defendant clearly apprised plaintiff of why the submitted NF-3 form did not satisfy its request for verification.
Since plaintiff did not demonstrate that it had provided defendant with the requested verification prior to the commencement of the instant action, the 30-day period within which defendant was required to pay or deny the claim did not begin to run ( see Insurance Department Regulations [ 11 NYCRR] § 65-3.8 [a]; Central Suffolk Hosp. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 24 AD3d 492). Consequently, the Civil Court properly granted defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as premature and denied plaintiff's cross motion for summary judgment. Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.
Pesce, P.J., Weston and Rios, JJ., concur.