Opinion
570347/04, 04-229.
Decided November 16, 2005.
Plaintiffs appeal from that portion of an order of Civil Court, New York County (Debra Rose Samuels, J.), entered February 6, 2004, which denied their motion for summary judgment.
Order (Debra Rose Samuels, J.) entered February 6, 2004, reversed, with $10 costs, plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment is granted in the amount demanded in the complaint and the matter is remanded to Civil Court for a calculation of statutory interest and an assessment of attorneys' fees due thereon, and for entry of judgment.
PRESENT: Suarez, P.J., Davis, Schoenfeld, JJ.
In this action to recover first party no-fault benefits for medical services rendered to its assignors, the plaintiff health care providers established a prima facie entitlement to summary judgment by evidentiary proof that they submitted claims between December 27, 2002 and April 8, 2003, setting forth the facts and the amounts thereof, and that payment of no-fault benefits was overdue as defendant neither paid nor denied the claims within 30 days as required by Insurance Law § 5106(a) ( see Mary Immaculate Hospital v. Allstate Ins. Co., 5 AD3d 742).
We find unavailing defendant's argument that plaintiffs are not entitled to judgment because the assignors failed to submit to examinations under oath (EUOs). While the prescribed No-Fault Mandatory Personal Injury Protection Endorsement under 11 NYCRR § 65-1.1(d) provides in the "Conditions" section that an injured person "shall . . . as may reasonably be required submit to examinations under oath . . .," defendant did not establish that the insurance policy in effect contained the no-fault endorsement authorizing EUOs. Although plaintiffs' claims were submitted after the April 5, 2002 effective date of the revised insurance regulations, the provisions of said regulations are not applicable to claims until new or renewed policies containing the revised endorsement are issued ( see Elite Psychological Services, P.C. v. Trumball Ins. Co., 2005 NY Slip Op 51427U [App Term 1st Dept]); Star Medical Services, P.C. v. Eagle Insurance Company, 6 Misc 3d 56). Consequently, absent a showing that the subject policy contained a no-fault endorsement permitting EUOs, defendant cannot rely on the revised regulations to argue that plaintiffs vitiated coverage by failing to comply with a condition precedent.
Nor may defendant base its right to an EUO on the policy provisions providing for "cooperation" because the no-fault protection created by the statute and implementing regulations cannot be qualified by the conditions of the liability portion of the policy ( see Utica Mut. Ins. Co. v. Timms, 293 AD2d 669, 670, lv dismissed 98 NY2d 727; Bronx Med. Serv. P.C. v. Lumbermans Mut. Cas. Co., 2003 NY Slip Op 51022U [App Term, 1st Dept]).
This constitutes the decision and order of the court.