Those cases

Hillcrest Radiology Assoc. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 2010 NY Slip Op 51246(U) (2nd, 11th & 13th Jud. Dists. 2010)

Plaintiff does not dispute that defendant established that it had timely denied the claim at issue on the ground of lack of medical necessity. In addition, in support of its motion for summary judgment, defendant submitted an affirmed peer review report setting forth a factual basis and medical rationale for the conclusion that there was a lack of medical necessity for the medical services at issue. Defendant’s showing that the services at issue were not medically necessary was unrebutted by plaintiff. Therefore, defendant’s motion for summary was properly granted (see e.g. 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., [*2]16 Misc 3d 131[A], 2007 NY Slip Op 51342[U] [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2007]).

Compare Abdalla v Mazl Taxi, Inc., 2010 NY Slip Op 06071 (App. Div., 2nd, 2010) h/t JT.

Kipor Medicine, P.C. v GEICO, 2010 NY Slip Op 51247(U) (2nd, 11th & 13th Jud. Dists. 2010)

The branch of defendant’s motion seeking consolidation should have been denied since defendant failed to demonstrate that the actions it sought to consolidate had common questions of law or fact (see CPLR 602 [a]; S & B Neurocare, P.C. v GEICO Ins. Co., 20 Misc 3d 132[A], 2008 NY Slip Op 51450[U] [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2008]). In addition, the branch of [*2]defendant’s motion seeking leave to amend the answer should have been denied since defendant’s papers presented no evidence that the proposed amendment might have merit (see CPLR 3025 [b]; Ingrami v Rovner, 45 AD3d 806, 808 [2007]). Defendant sought to amend its answer to assert that plaintiff’s certificate of incorporation had been revoked following the surrender, in April 2006, of the medical license of plaintiff’s sole shareholder. Plaintiff, however, is entitled to wind up its affairs and seek to recover no-fault benefits for the services it rendered to its assignors prior to April 2006 (see e.g. A.B. Med. Servs., PLLC v Travelers Indem. Co., 26 Misc 3d 69 [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2009]). Defendant has not demonstrated that the facts herein are akin to a fraudulent incorporation (see State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v Mallela, 4 NY3d 313 [2005]).

Moreover, since defendant failed to submit an affidavit specifying that any unusual or unanticipated conditions had developed after the notice of trial had been filed which made it necessary for defendant to engage in further pretrial proceedings (see Uniform Rules for New York City Civ Ct [22 NYCRR] § 208.17 [d]; S & B Neurocare, P.C. v GEICO Ins. Co., 20 Misc 3d 132[A], 2008 NY Slip Op 51450[U]), the branch of defendant’s motion seeking to compel plaintiff to respond to discovery demands and produce its sole shareholder for an examination before trial should also have been denied.

Neomy Med., P.C. v GEICO Ins. Co., 2010 NY Slip Op 51252(U) (2nd, 11th & 13th Jud. Dists. 2010)

In support of its cross motion, defendant annexed a copy of its denial of claim form which [*2]denied plaintiff’s claim for services rendered on April 6, 2006 on the ground of lack of medical necessity, as well as an affirmed peer review report which set forth a factual basis and medical rationale for the opinion that there was a lack of medical necessity for such services. As a result, defendant made a prima facie showing of its entitlement to summary judgment with respect to this claim form (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]). With respect to the branch of defendant’s cross motion seeking summary judgment dismissing so much of the complaint as sought to recover the unpaid portion of bills for services rendered on March 14, 2006, which claims were timely denied on the ground that the unpaid portion exceeded the amount permitted by the workers’ compensation fee schedule, we find that defendant made a prima facie showing of its entitlement to judgment thereon. As plaintiff failed to rebut defendant’s prima facie showings, and plaintiff’s remaining contentions are either raised for the first time on appeal or lack merit, the order is reversed, plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is denied and defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted.

Five Boro Psychological Servs., P.C. v MVAIC, 2010 NY Slip Op 51250(U) (2nd, 11th & 13th Jud. Dists. 2010)

“The filing of a timely affidavit providing the MVAIC with notice of intention to file a claim is a condition precedent to the right to apply for payment from [MVAIC]‘ (see Insurance Law § 5208 [a] [1], [3]). Compliance with the statutory requirement of timely filing a notice of claim must be established in order to demonstrate that the claimant is a covered person,’ within the meaning of the statute, entitled to recover no-fault benefits from the MVAIC (see Insurance Law § 5221 [b] [2]; Ocean Diagnostic Imaging v Motor Veh. Acc. Indem. Corp., 8 Misc 3d 137[A], 2005 NY Slip Op 51271[U] [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2005]). Defendant MVAIC’s failure to timely deny plaintiff['s] claim[ ] is of no consequence . . .” (A.B. Med. Servs. [*2]PLLC v Motor Veh. Acc. Indem. Corp., 10 Misc 3d 145[A], 2006 NY Slip Op 50139[U], *3 [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2006]; see also M.N.M. Med. Health Care, P.C. v MVAIC, 22 Misc 3d 128[A], 2009 NY Slip Op 50041[U] [App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2009]; Bell Air Med. Supply, LLC v MVAIC, 16 Misc 3d 135[A], 2007 NY Slip Op 51607[U] [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2007]). Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment was properly denied.

Stoessel v Allstate Ins. Co., 2010 NY Slip Op 51244(U) (2nd, 11th & 13th Jud. Dists. 2010)

Contrary to defendant’s contention, the instant action was properly commenced in the Commercial Claims Part of the Civil Court by plaintiff – - a professional corporation which had its principal office in the State of New York ^[FN1] (see CCA 1801-A [a]; 1809-A [a]; cf. East End [*2]Med., P.C. v Oxford Health Ins., Inc., 12 Misc 3d 135[A], 2006 NY Slip Op 51229[U] [App Term, 1st Dept 2006]).

Defendant’s contention that there was no proof that defendant had been served with the notice of claim also lacks merit. Pursuant to CCA 1803-A, the clerk of the court is to provide a defendant with notice of the claim “by ordinary first class mail and certified mail with return receipt requested . . . If, after the expiration of twenty-one
days, such ordinary first class mailing has not been returned as undeliverable, the party complained against shall be presumed to have received notice of such claim.”

The commercial claims index card herein indicates that defendant was properly served with notice of the claim. Defendant’s conclusory denial of service failed to rebut the presumption that defendant received notice of the claim, since the mail had not been returned as undeliverable prior to the expiration of 21 days (see CCA 1803-A). Consequently, it was incumbent upon defendant to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for its default as well as a meritorious defense to the action (see CPLR 5015 [a]; Euguene Di Lorenzo, Inc. v A.C. Dutton Lbr. Co., 67 NY2d 138, 141 [1986]), which it failed to do. Consequently, the Civil Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying defendant’s motion to vacate the default judgment. Accordingly, substantial justice was done between the parties (see CCA 1807-A) and, thus, the order is affirmed.