Opinion
2004874KC
Decided on May 19, 2005.
Appeal by plaintiff from so much of an order of the Civil Court, Kings County (E. Spodek, J.), dated April 29, 2004, as denied its motion for summary judgment.
Order insofar as appealed from affirmed with $10 costs.
PRESENT: PESCE, P.J., GOLIA and RIOS, JJ.
In this action to recover the sum of $741.03 in first-party no-fault benefits for medical supplies furnished to its assignor, plaintiff established a prima facie entitlement to summary judgment by proof that it submitted a claim, 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; Amaze Med. Supply v. Eagle Ins. Co., 2 Misc 3d 128[A], 2003 NY Slip Op 51701[U] [App Term, 2d 11th Jud Dists]). Inasmuch as defendant failed to pay or deny the claim within the 30-day prescribed period (11 NYCRR 65.15 [g] [3], now 11 NYCRR 65-3.8 [c]), it was precluded from raising most defenses ( see Presbyterian Hosp. in City of N.Y. v. Maryland Cas. Co., 90 NY2d 274, 282).
Defendant was not, however, precluded from asserting the defense that the collision was in furtherance of an insurance fraud scheme, despite the untimely denial of the claim ( see Matter of Metro Med. Diagnostics v. Eagle Ins. Co., 293 AD2d 751). The affidavit submitted by defendant's SIU investigator was sufficient to demonstrate that defendant's denial was based upon a "founded belief that the alleged injur[ies] do not arise out of an insured incident" ( Central Gen. Hosp. v. Chubb Group of Ins. Cos., 90 NY2d 195, 199). Accordingly, since defendant demonstrated the existence of a triable issue of fact as to whether there was a lack of coverage ( see id.; Zuckerman v. City of New York, 49 NY2d 557), plaintiff's motion for summary judgment was properly denied.
Contrary to defendant's contention, defendant was not entitled to summary judgment based upon plaintiff's assignor's nonattendance at scheduled examinations under oath ( see Star Med. Servs. P.C. v. Eagle Ins. Co., 6 Misc 3d 56 [App Term, 2d 11th Jud Dists 2004]; Melbourne Med., P.C. v. Utica Mut. Ins. Co., 4 Misc 3d 92 [App Term, 2d 11th Jud Dists 2004]).
Pesce, P.J., and Rios, J., concur.
Golia, J., concurs in a separate memorandum.
Golia, J., concurs with the result only, in the following memorandum:
While I agree with the ultimate disposition in the decision reached by the majority, I wish to emphasize that I disagree with certain propositions of law set forth in cases cited therein which are inconsistent with my prior expressed positions and generally contrary to my views.