| New York Hosp. Med. Ctr. of Queens v Country Wide Ins.Co. |
| 2011 NY Slip Op 01628 [82 AD3d 723] |
| March 1, 2011 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| New York Hospital Medical Center of Queens, as Assignee ofBrian Quintero, et al., Appellants, v Country Wide Insurance Company,Respondent. |
—[*1] Jaffe & Koumourdas, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Jean H. Kang of counsel), forrespondent.
In an action to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits for medical services rendered,the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court,Nassau County (Murphy, J.), entered July 14, 2010, as denied that branch of their motion whichwas for summary judgment on the first cause of action.
Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with one bill of costspayable to the plaintiff New York Hospital Medical Center of Queens, and that branch of theplaintiffs' motion which was for summary judgment on the first cause of action is granted.
The plaintiffs established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on thefirst cause of action by submitting, inter alia, the requisite billing forms, the affidavits from itsthird-party biller, the certified mail receipts, and the signed return-receipt card referencing thepatient and the forms, which demonstrated that the plaintiff New York Hospital Medical Centerof Queens (hereinafter the plaintiff) mailed the necessary billing documents to the defendant, thatthe defendant received them, and that the payment of no-fault benefits was overdue (seeInsurance Law § 5106 [a]; 11 NYCRR 65-3.8 [a] [1]; Westchester Med. Ctr. v GMAC Ins. Co. Online, Inc., 80 AD3d603 [2011]; Westchester Med. Ctr.v Countrywide Ins. Co., 45 AD3d 676 [2007]; New York & Presbyt. Hosp. v Countrywide Ins. Co., 44 AD3d 729,730 [2007]; Hospital for Joint Diseasesv Travelers Prop. Cas. Ins. Co., 34 AD3d 532 [2006], affd 9 NY3d 312 [2007]).
In opposition, the defendant failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Alvarez v ProspectHosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]). The defendant's verification requests, dated April 22,2008, and May 22, 2008, respectively, requested "Rev. 01/04 NF5 & Assignment of BenefitForms signed (No Stamps)." The plaintiff responded by providing exactly what was requested ofit. The defendant cannot now complain that the NF5 or the assignment of benefits formsprovided by the plaintiff were "outdated," as its verification requests only sought the January2004 version of the NF5 form and its accompanying assignment. Contrary to the SupremeCourt's conclusion, the affidavit of the defendant's representative was insufficient to raise atriable issue of fact, as the plaintiff's documented responses demonstrate that it [*2]complied with the defendant's verification requests.
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted that branch of the plaintiffs' motionwhich was for summary judgment on the first cause of action. Dillon, J.P., Covello, Florio andHall, JJ., concur.