Five Boro Psychological Servs., P.C. v GEICO Gen. Ins. Co.

[*1] Five Boro Psychological Servs., P.C. v GEICO Gen. Ins. Co. 2012 NY Slip Op 51447(U) Decided on July 25, 2012 Appellate Term, Second 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 July 25, 2012
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 2d, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : PESCE, P.J., WESTON and RIOS, JJ
2010-2399 K C.

Five Boro Psychological Services, P.C. as Assignee of IZABELLA MOSKALIK and YOURI NEIMAN, Appellant,

against

GEICO General Ins. Co., Respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Dawn Jimenez Salta, J.), entered March 11, 2010. The order denied plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and granted defendant's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with $10 costs.

In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Civil Court denying plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and granting defendant's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Contrary to plaintiff's contention, the affidavit of defendant's claims division employee established that defendant's denial of claim forms had been timely mailed (see St. Vincent's Hosp. of Richmond v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 50 AD3d 1123 [2008]; Delta Diagnostic Radiology, P.C. v Chubb Group of Ins., 17 Misc 3d 16 [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2007]). Moreover, defendant annexed to its cross motion papers affirmed peer review reports which set forth a factual basis and medical rationale for the doctor's determination that there was a lack of medical necessity for the billed-for services. Defendant's showing of lack of medical necessity was unrebutted by plaintiff. Plaintiff's remaining contentions were either not raised in the Civil Court or lack merit. Consequently, defendant is entitled to summary judgment (see Delta [*2]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]).

Accordingly, the order is affirmed.

Pesce, P.J., Weston and Rios, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: July 25, 2012