| Westchester Med. Ctr. v American Tr. Ins. Co. |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 01979 [60 AD3d 848] |
| March 17, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Westchester Medical Center, as Assignee of Daphne McPherson,Respondent, et al., Plaintiffs, v American Transit Insurance Company,Appellant. |
—[*1] Joseph Henig, P.C., Bellmore, N.Y., for respondent.
In an action to recover no-fault medical payments under certain insurance contracts, thedefendant appeals, as limited by its brief, from (1) so much of an order of the Supreme Court,Nassau County (McCormack, J.), dated January 21, 2008, as granted that branch of the plaintiffs'motion which was for summary judgment on the first cause of action asserted by the plaintiffWestchester Medical Center, as assignee of Daphne McPherson, and (2) so much of a judgmentof the same court entered April 16, 2008, as, upon the order, is in favor of the plaintiffWestchester Medical Center, as assignee of Daphne McPherson, and against it in the principalsum of $6,993.96. The notice of appeal from the order is deemed also to be a notice of appealfrom the judgment (see CPLR 5501 [c]).
Ordered that the appeal from the order dated January 21, 2008 is dismissed; and it is further,
Ordered that the judgment is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, that branch ofthe plaintiffs' motion which was for summary judgment on the first cause of action asserted bythe plaintiff Westchester Medical Center, as assignee of Daphne McPherson, is denied, and theorder dated January 21, 2008 is modified accordingly; and it is further,
Ordered that one bill of costs is awarded to the appellant.
The appeal from the intermediate order must be dismissed because the right of direct appealtherefrom terminated with the entry of judgment in the action (see Matter of Aho, 39NY2d 241, 248 [1976]). [*2]The issues raised on the appeal fromthe order are brought up for review and have been considered on the appeal from the judgment(see CPLR 5501 [a] [1]).
The plaintiff Westchester Medical Center (hereinafter WMC), among others, commencedthis action to recover no-fault medical benefits allegedly owed its patient/assignor DaphneMcPherson for injuries sustained by her in a motor vehicle accident involving an insured of thedefendant American Transit Insurance Company. The plaintiffs moved for summary judgmenton the first cause of action asserted by WMC, as assignee of McPherson, arguing that thedefendant received a demand for payment of such benefits on February 20, 2007 and neither paidnor denied such benefits within 30 days. WMC asserted that the defendant did not deny benefitsuntil April 5, 2007. Thus, WMC argued, the benefits were now "overdue" (see 11NYCRR 65-3.8). In opposition, the defendant argued, inter alia, that its denial of benefits wastimely as a result of the toll of its time within which to pay or deny a claim arising from itsdemand for additional verification of the claim. The Supreme Court, among other things,awarded WMC summary judgment on the first cause of action. We reverse the judgment enteredupon the order insofar as appealed from.
The defendant does not dispute that it received a demand for no-fault benefits from WMC onFebruary 20, 2007 and that it neither paid nor denied such benefits within 30 days thereof(see 11 NYCRR 65-3.8 [c]; Westchester Med. Ctr. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 44 AD3d750 [2007]). However, the defendant demonstrated, prima facie, that it made a timelyrequest for additional verification of the claim, and that its denial of benefits was timely asmeasured from the receipt of additional verification which allegedly revealed that McPhersonwas entitled to workers' compensation benefits for the underlying accident (see 11NYCRR 65-3.5 [b]; 65-3.8 [b]; Westchester Med. Ctr. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 44 AD3d750 [2007]; Montefiore Med. Ctr. vGovernment Empls. Ins. Co., 34 AD3d 771 [2006]). Thus, that branch of the plaintiffs'motion which was for summary judgment on the first cause of action asserted by WMC, asassignee of McPherson, should have been denied.
We decline the defendant's request, in effect, to search the record and award it summaryjudgment dismissing WMC's cause of action and to refer the matter to the Workers'Compensation Board for a determination as to whether McPherson is entitled to workers'compensation benefits for the underlying accident (see generally O'Hurley-Pitts v Diocese of Rockville Ctr., 57 AD3d633 [2008]; Catapane v HalfHollow Hills Cent. School Dist., 45 AD3d 517 [2007]). The defendant, inter alia, failedto proffer competent evidence in admissible form of the alleged facts giving rise to its contentionthat workers' compensation benefits are available. Rivera, J.P., Spolzino, Ritter and Miller, JJ.,concur. [See 19 Misc 3d 1104(A), 2008 NY Slip Op 50546(U).]