Opinion
2008-2087 Q C.
Decided October 13, 2009.
Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Carolyn E. Wade, J.), entered September 30, 2008, deemed from a judgment of the same court entered November 10, 2008 (see CPLR 5512 [a]). The judgment, entered pursuant to the September 30, 2008 order granting plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $2,693.12.
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., GOLIA and STEINHARDT, JJ.
In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, plaintiff moved for summary judgment. In opposition to the motion, defendant argued, based upon an affirmed peer review report, that the MRIs were not medically necessary. By order dated September 30, 2008, the Civil Court granted plaintiff's motion for summary judgment. After judgment was entered on November 10, 2008, defendant filed a notice of appeal from the September 30, 2008 order. We deem the appeal to be from the judgment ( see CPLR 5512 [a]).
On appeal, defendant's sole contention with respect to plaintiff's prima facie case is that the affidavit of plaintiff's billing manager failed to establish that the documents annexed to plaintiff's motion for summary judgment were admissible as business records. We disagree because the affidavit was sufficient to comply with 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 demonstrate the existence of a triable issue of fact ( Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557).
In opposition to plaintiff's motion, defendant established that it had timely denied plaintiff's claims based upon an affirmed peer review report setting forth a factual basis and medical rationale for the doctor's opinion that the services provided to plaintiff's assignor were not medically necessary ( see New York Univ. Hosp. Rusk Inst. v Government Empls. Ins. Co. , 39 AD3d 832 ; Quality Health Prods., P.C. v Progressive Ins. Co. , 20 Misc 3d 143[A], 2008 NY Slip Op 51757[U] [App Term, 2d 11th Jud Dists 2008]). 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 Velen Med. Supply, Inc. v GEICO Ins. Co. , 23 Misc 3d 132 [A], 2009 NY Slip Op 50735[U] [App Term, 2d, 11th 13th Jud Dists 2009]).
To the extent defendant asks this court to search the record and grant it summary judgment, we decline to do so ( see e.g. New York Univ. Hosp. Rusk Inst., 39 AD3d 832).
Pesce, P.J., Golia and Steinhardt, JJ., concur.