Aronoff v Motor Veh. Acc. Indem. Corp.

[*1] Aronoff v Motor Veh. Acc. Indem. Corp. 2007 NY Slip Op 50958(U) [15 Misc 3d 139(A)] Decided on May 8, 2007 Appellate Term, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on May 8, 2007
APPELLATE TERM OF THE SUPREME COURT, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT: McKEON, P.J., DAVIS, SCHOENFELD, JJ
570531/06.

Nathaniel Aronoff, D.C. a/a/o Serge Cooks; D. Sachdev, M.D., a/a/o Serge Cooks, Plaintiffs-Respondents, - -

against

Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corporation, Defendant-Appellant.

Defendant, as limited by its briefs, appeals from a judgment of the Civil Court of the City New York, Bronx County (Nelida Malave, J.), entered June 7, 2006, in favor of plaintiffs in the amount of $31,980.06, and from so much of an order (same court and Judge), entered July 22, 2005, as denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and granted plaintiffs' cross motion for summary judgment.

PER CURIAM:

Judgment (Nelida Malave, J.) entered June 7, 2006, affirmed, with $25 costs. Appeal from order (Nelida Malave, J.), entered July 22, 2005, dismissed as subsumed in the appeal from the judgment.
Contrary to defendant's contention, plaintiffs made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law "by submitting evidentiary proof that the prescribed statutory billing forms had been mailed and received and that payment of no-fault benefits was overdue" (New York Hosp. Med. Ctr. of Queens v Motor Veh. Acc. Indem. Corp., 12 AD3d 429 [2004], lv denied 4 NY3d 705 [2005]). In opposition, defendant failed to raise a triable issue of fact. It is undisputed on this record that defendant did not pay or deny the subject claims within the 30-day period after it received proof of claims, including additional verifications requested by it, as required by the insurance regulations (see 11 NYCRR 65.15 [g][1][I]; [3]). The 30-day requirement applies to defendant by the express terms of the insurance regulation (11 NYCRR 65.15), and does not hinge upon whether the injured person had been deemed a "qualified person" by defendant (see New York Hosp. Med. Ctr. of Queens v Motor Veh. Acc. Indem. Corp., 12 AD3d at 430).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.
I concurI concurI concur [*2]
Decision Date: May 08, 2007