| Westchester Med. Ctr. v Lancer Ins. Co. |
| 2012 NY Slip Op 02867 [94 AD3d 984] |
| April 17, 2012 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Westchester Medical Center, as Assignee of Peter Dilemme,Appellant, v Lancer Insurance Company, Respondent. |
—[*1] Bruno, Gerbino & Soriano, LLP, Melville, N.Y. (Mitchell L. Kaufman of counsel), forrespondent.
In an action to recover no-fault medical payments under a policy of automobile insurance, theplaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Marber, J.),entered September 12, 2011, as denied its motion for summary judgment on the complaint.
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The plaintiff demonstrated its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on itscomplaint to recover no-fault payments, by submitting evidence that the prescribed statutorybilling form had been mailed and received by the defendant insurer, which failed to either pay ordeny the claim within the requisite 30-day period (see Insurance Law § 5106 [a];11 NYCRR 65-3.5; NYU-Hosp. forJoint Diseases v American Intl. Group, Inc., 89 AD3d 702 [2011]; Mount Sinai Hosp. v Country Wide Ins.Co., 85 AD3d 1136 [2011]; Mount Sinai Hosp. v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 85 AD3d 1135[2011]; New York & Presbyt. Hosp. vSelective Ins. Co. of Am., 43 AD3d 1019 [2007]). In opposition to the motion, however,the defendant established that it had made a timely request for additional verification and that ittimely denied the claim within 30 days of receipt of the requested information (see 11NYCRR 65-3.8 [a] [1]; 65-3.5 [b]; 65-3.6 [b]; Westchester Med. Ctr. v American Tr. Ins. Co., 60 AD3d 848, 849[2009]; New York Univ. Hosp. RuskInst. v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 39 AD3d 832 [2007]; New York & Presbyt. Hosp. v Allstate Ins.Co., 31 AD3d 512, 513 [2006]; see generally Hospital for Joint Diseases v Travelers Prop. Cas. Ins. Co.,9 NY3d 312, 317 [2007]).
The parties' remaining contentions are without merit.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiff's motion for summaryjudgment on the complaint. Skelos, J.P., Dillon, Eng and Austin, JJ., concur.