Civil Court erred in dismissing this action by plaintiff to recover first-party no-fault benefits at the close of the trial on the ground that plaintiff failed to file proof of service of the summons and complaint on defendant. At no point in the action did defendant assert that plaintiff failed to file an affidavit of service and, therefore, defendant waived any objection on that ground (see generally Ballard v HSBC Bank USA, 6 NY3d 658 [2006]; Harris v Niagara Falls Bd. of Educ., 6 NY3d 155 [2006]). In any event, the failure to file an affidavit of service under the former commencement-by-service system that governed when this action was commenced (see former CCA 409) did not warrant dismissal of the action; rather, such failure was an irregularity that was correctable nunc pro tuncsee former CCA 411; see also Lumberman’s Mut. Cas. Co. v Temco Serv. Indus., 209 AD2d 296 [1994]). (
With respect to the merits of plaintiff’s action, as Civil Court properly recognized, plaintiff established a prima facie case to recover the first-party no-fault benefits it sought in its complaint. Since defendant failed to adduce any evidence on the issue of the medical necessity of the services rendered to plaintiff’s assignor, defendant’s only purported defense at trial, we direct judgment in plaintiff’s favor for the principal amount sought in the complaint.
Ortho Pro Labs, Inc. v American Tr. Ins. Co.,2009 NY Slip Op 52693(U) (App. Term, 2nd, 2010)
The application for no-fault benefits form, which was signed by plaintiff’s assignor under penalty of perjury, states that the assignor was in the course of his employment when he was injured, an admission that is “sufficient to raise a question of fact as to whether the assignor was acting as an employee at the time of the accident. . ., which issue must be resolved in the first [*2]instance by the [Workers' Compensation] Board” (A.B. Med. Servs., PLLC v American Tr. Ins. Co., 24 Misc 3d 75, 76-77 [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2009] [citation omitted]; see O’Rourke v Long, 41 NY2d 219, 225 [1976]; Santigate v Linsalata, 304 AD2d 639, 640 [2003]; see also Infinity Health Prods., Ltd. v New York City Tr. Auth., 21 Misc 3d 136[A], 2008 NY Slip Op 52218[U] [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2008]; Response Equip., Inc. v American Tr. Ins. Co., 15 Misc 3d 145[A], 2007 NY Slip Op 51176[U] [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2007]). In light of the foregoing, plaintiff’s remaining contentions lack merit.
In addition to staying the action pending an application to the Workers’ Compensation Board, the Civil Court’s order should have provided that in the event plaintiff fails to file proof with the Civil Court of an application to the Workers’ Compensation Board within 90 days, defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted unless plaintiff shows good cause why the complaint should not be dismissed. We modify the order accordingly.
RLC Med., P.C. v Allstate Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 2009 NY Slip Op 52691(U) (App. Term, 2nd, 2010)
In opposition to plaintiffs’ motion, defendant established that while facts may exist that are essential to justify denial of the branch of the summary judgment motion seeking to recover upon claims submitted by RLC, defendant was unable to set forth sufficient facts to establish the defense of fraudulent incorporation (seeState Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v Mallela, 4 NY3d 313 [2005]) since such information was within RLC’s possession and RLC had not complied with defendant’s discovery demands therefor (see CPLR 3212 [f]). Consequently, the District Court properly denied the branch of the motion for summary judgment upon the claims submitted by RLC (see id.; Crossbay Acupuncture, P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 15 Misc 3d 110 [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2007]; Midborough Acupuncture P.C. v State Farm Ins. Co., 13 Misc 3d 58 [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2006]). Insurance Department Regulations [11 NYCRR] ยง 65-3.16 [a] [12];
However, defendant failed to demonstrate the existence of an issue of fact with regard to claims from Gentle Care, in the amounts of $1,045, $1,500, $1,375, $1,090 and $250, and claims from Craigg, in the amounts of $88.44, $370.70, $404.40, $235.90 and $67.40. Defendant denied said claims on the ground that the “injured person” failed to attend scheduled examinations under oath (EUOs). However, defendant’s opposition papers allege that plaintiffs’ assignor appeared at the EUO. Consequently, since defendant’s stated reason for the denials of said claims is not supported by the record, defendant failed to raise a triable issue of fact with respect thereto.
Defendant denied Craigg’s $269.60 claim based upon the assignor’s EUO testimony. Since the purported EUO transcript annexed to defendant’s opposition papers is not in admissible form, we decline to consider it. Accordingly, Craigg was entitled to summary judgment upon said claim.
With regard to the $350.56 claim from Gentle Care, defendant denied it on the basis of Gentle Care’s failure to establish a prima facie case of medical necessity. However, defendant’s opposing papers did not contain any support for such defense (see Amaze Med. Supply, 2 Misc 3d 128[A], 2003 NY Slip Op 51701[U]). Accordingly, Gentle Care was entitled to summary judgment upon said claim.
I don’t think this decision indicates that a motion for summary judgment is premature when discovery has not be completed, as a matter of law. CPLR 3212(f) is not available in all circumstances. The non-moving party must “offer an evidentiary basis to suggest that discovery may lead to relevant evidence.” Doe v City of New York, 2009 NY Slip Op 08580 (App. Div., 2nd, 2009). Its “mere hope or speculation that evidence sufficient to defeat a motion for summary judgment may be uncovered during the discovery process is insufficient.” Davila v New York City Tr. Auth., 2009 NY Slip Op 07792 (App. Div., 2nd, 2009). There are a ton more cases. I don’t feel like putting any more here. “Merely identifying the issue” is not enough.
You can find most of the 3212(f) decisions over at the CPLR blog. If you want to search for the (f) decisions over there, hit CTL+f, then type (f).
Perfect Point Acupuncture, P.C. v Auto One Ins. Co.,2010 NY Slip Op 50010(U) (Civ Ct City NY, Kings County, 2010)
At oral argument, plaintiff’s counsel maintained, inter alia, that since defendant did not strictly comply with the time limitations set forth in 11 NYCRR 65.15[e][2], it lost the toll of the 30-day rule to pay or deny the claim. Plaintiff’s counsel pointed out that the second IME letter was mailed only 17 days after the first. She maintained that pursuant to 11 NYCRR 65.15[e][2], defendant was required to wait a full 30 days after the initial mailing of the IME request before mailing out the second request. The Court finds plaintiff’s argument to be unavailing.
In Infinity Health Products, Ltd. v Eveready Ins. Co., 67 AD3d 862, 2009 NY Slip Op 08585 [2d Dept ]), the Court recently held that it “[i]t would be inequitable to award summary judgment to the plaintiff, which ignored two verification requests, merely because the defendant, slightly prematurely, sent its second verification request a mere 3 days before the expiration of a full 30 days after the first verification request had been sent” (2009 NY Slip Op 08585 at 2 [citations omitted]) The Court reasoned that “it would be incongruous to conclude that the insurance regulation regarding follow-up verification, or any other statute or rule, warrants a result which would, in effect, penalize an insurer who diligently attempts to obtain the information necessary to make a determination of a claim, and concomitantly, rewards a plaintiff who makes no attempt to even comply with the insurer’s requests…. and [that] [s]uch a result is not contemplated by the no-fault law’ or its regulations, which should be interpreted to promote the expeditious handling of verification requests and prompt claim resolution” (Id.).
The Court held that “inasmuch as the plaintiff did not respond to either of the verification requests, the 30-day period within which the defendant was required to pay or deny the claim did not commence to run . . . and that . . . plaintiff’s action [was therefore] premature” (Id.). The [*3]Court further held that “plaintiff was not entitled to summary judgment on the complaint, and the defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint should have been granted . . .without prejudice to commencement of a new action” (Id. [citations omitted]).
In this Court’s view, the holding in Infinity Health Products, Ltd. requires dismissal of the within action, without prejudice to its recommencement. Here, as in Infinity Health Products, Ltd., it would be inequitable to award summary judgment to the plaintiff, whose assignor ignored two verification requests, merely because the defendant did not strictly adhere to the time frames set forth in 11 NYCRR 65-3.6[b] for mailing out second requests for additional verification of a claim . It would be incongruous to conclude that 11 NYCRR 65-3.6[b] mandates a result that would penalize the defendant for its diligent attempts to obtain additional verification of the claims and reward plaintiff whose assignor ignored the requests.
This court recognizes that this case is not on all fours with Infinity Health Products, Ltd.. In Infinity Health Products, Ltd., the defendant sent its second written verification request a mere 3 days before the expiration of a full 30 days after the first verification request had been sent. Here, the second written verification request was sent out 13 days before the expiration of the 30 day period referred to in 11 NYCRR 65-3.6[b]. Under the facts and circumstances of this case, however, this distinction does not warrant a contrary result.
When plaintiff’s assignor failed to appear for the IME on September 6, 2009, the re-scheduling letter was mailed to her on the following day. Unlike in Infinity Health Products, Ltd., once plaintiff’s assignor failed to appear for the IME, there is no legitimate reason why defendant should have waited a full 30 days from the mailing of the first letter to mail out the re-scheduling letter. Indeed, had defendant waited a full 30 days, it would have had acted in contravention of one of the primary policies underlying the “no-fault law”; which is “to promote the expeditious handling of verification requests and prompt claim resolution” (Infinity Health Products, Ltd., supra, 67 AD3d 862, 2009 NY Slip Op 08585 at 2). Further, the Court notes that when plaintiff’s assignor failed to appear for the re-scheduled IME, 30 days had elapsed from the time that the first scheduling letter had been sent to her.
Roy over at CoverageCounsel post his thoughts on this decision.
The court in RLC basically found that the RLC MFSJ failed as a matter of law in light of pending discovery. Specifically, it appears that all the insurer did was identify the issue– i.e. whether the plaintiff RLC was fraudulently incorporated– and establish that its pending discovery addressed this issue. The insurer did not, apparently, proffer any proof of fraudulent incorporation. A determination rejecting the motion without reference to the facts of the claim premised on procedural grounds sounds a lot like “as a matter of law” to me. But the query was a bit ambiguous at the start, as this case brings to light.