Opinion
2009-1805 Q C.
Decided October 1, 2010.
Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Diane A. Lebedeff, J.), entered June 8, 2009, deemed from a judgment of the same court entered July 27, 2009 (see CPLR 5501 [c]). The judgment, entered pursuant to the June 8, 2009 order granting plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $912.
ORDERED that the judgment is reversed without costs, the order granting plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is vacated and plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is denied.
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 opposed the motion on the ground that the services rendered were not medically necessary. By order entered June 8, 2009, the Civil Court granted plaintiff's motion for summary judgment. This appeal by defendant ensued. A judgment was subsequently entered, from which the appeal is deemed to be taken ( see CPLR 5501 [c]).
Contrary to defendant's contention, the affidavit submitted by plaintiff's billing manager 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]). As a result, the burden shifted to defendant to raise a triable issue of fact ( see Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557).
The affidavit submitted by defendant in opposition to plaintiff's motion for summary judgment was sufficient to establish that defendant's denial of claim form, which had denied the claim at issue of the ground of lack of medical necessity, was timely mailed in accordance with defendant's standard office practices and procedures ( see St. Vincent's Hosp. of Richmond v Government Empls. Ins. Co. , 50 AD3d 1123 ; Residential Holding Corp. v Scottsdale Ins. Co., 286 AD2d 679; Delta Diagnostic Radiology, P.C. v Chubb Group of Ins. , 17 Misc 3d 16 [App Term, 2d 11th Jud Dists 2007]). Defendant also annexed a copy of an affirmed peer review report setting forth a factual basis and medical rationale for the doctor's conclusion that the subject services were not medically necessary. As a result, defendant proffered sufficient evidence in admissible form to demonstrate the existence of a triable issue of fact as to medical necessity ( see Delta Diagnostic Radiology, P.C. v Integon Natl. Ins. Co. , 24 Misc 3d 136[A], 2009 NY Slip Op 51502[U] [App Term, 2d, 11th 13th Jud Dists 2009]; Delta Diagnostic Radiology, P.C. v American Tr. Ins. Co. , 18 Misc 3d 128 [A], 2007 NY Slip Op 52455[U] [App Term, 2d 11th Jud Dists 2007]; 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]). Accordingly, the judgment is reversed, the order granting plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is vacated and plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is denied.
Pesce, P.J., Rios and Steinhardt, JJ., concur.