Opinion
2008-2032 Q C.
Decided November 13, 2009.
Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Diane A. Lebedeff, J.), entered September 29, 2008, deemed from a judgment of the same court entered November 6, 2008 (see CPLR 5501 [c]). The judgment, entered pursuant to the September 29, 2008 order which denied defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and granted plaintiff's cross motion for summary judgment, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $168.50.
ORDERED that the judgment is reversed without costs, the order entered September 29, 2008 is vacated, defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted, and plaintiff's cross motion for summary judgment is denied.
PRESENT: WESTON, J.P., RIOS and STEINHARDT, JJ.
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 services rendered to plaintiff's assignor were not medically necessary. Plaintiff opposed defendant's motion and cross-moved for summary judgment. The Civil Court denied defendant's motion, finding that defendant had failed to show that it had timely denied plaintiff's claims, and granted plaintiff's cross motion for summary judgment. Defendant appeals from the order. A judgment was subsequently entered, from which the appeal is deemed to be taken ( see CPLR 5501 [c]).
Contrary to the finding of the Civil Court, defendant demonstrated, based upon its standard office practice and procedure used to ensure that claim denial forms are properly addressed and mailed, that it timely mailed the denial of claim forms at issue ( see Residential Holding Corp. v Scottsdale Ins. Co., 286 AD2d 679; AJS Chiropractic, P.C. v Mercury Ins. Co. , 22 Misc 3d 133[A], 2009 NY Slip Op 50208[U] [App Term, 2d, 11th 13th Jud Dists 2009]; Delta Diagnostic Radiology, P.C. v Chubb Group of Ins. , 17 Misc 3d 16 [App Term, 2d 11th Jud Dists 2007]). Moreover, the report of the independent chiropractic/acupuncture examination performed on plaintiff's assignor, accompanied by the examiner's affidavit, was in admissible form, and provided a factual basis and medical rationale for defendant's chiropractor's opinion that the services at issue were not medically necessary ( see AJS Chiropractic, P.C., 22 Misc 3d 133 [A], 2009 NY Slip Op 50208[U]; Delta Diagnostic Radiology, P.C. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co. , 21 Misc 3d 142[A], 2008 NY Slip Op 52450[U] [App Term, 2d 11th Jud Dists 2008]).
Since the affidavit of plaintiff's chiropractor, which did not meaningfully refer to or discuss the conclusion of defendant's chiropractor, was insufficient to rebut defendant's prima facie showing ( see Pan Chiropractic, P.C. v Mercury Ins. Co. , 24 Misc 3d 136 [A], 2009 NY Slip Op 51495[U] [App Term, 2d, 11th 13th Jud Dists 2009]), defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint should have been granted ( see Delta Diagnostic Radiology, P.C. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co. , 21 Misc 3d 142[A], 2008 NY Slip Op 52450[U]; A. Khodadadi Radiology, P.C. v NY Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. , 16 Misc 3d 131[A], 2007 NY Slip Op 51342[U] [App Term, 2d 11th Jud Dists 2007]).
Weston, J.P., Rios and Steinhardt, JJ., concur.