Alleviation Med. Servs., PC v Hertz Co.
Annotate this Case
[*1]
Alleviation Med. Servs., PC v Hertz Co.
2015 NY Slip Op 25285
Decided on August 12, 2015
Civil Court Of The City Of New York, Kings County
Mostofsky, J.
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the printed Official Reports.
Decided on August 12, 2015
Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County
Alleviation Medical Services, PC A/A/O NADIA INNOCENT, Plaintiff
against
Hertz Co., Defendant
62883/11
Gary Tsirelman, PC, 129 Livingston St., Brooklyn, NY 11201, for Plaintiff
Robyn M. Brilliant, Esq., 333 West 39th St., New York 10018, for Defendant
Steven Z. Mostofsky, J.
Plaintiff claimed it served notices to admit on the defendant. Since the defendant never contested the admissions, the plaintiff moved for summary judgment. The court denies that portion of Plaintiff's motion since it never submitted the notices to admit.
Plaintiff also submitted defendant's response to interrogatories with attached denials. One denial listed the claim's date and the date defendant received it. The plaintiff moved for summary judgment because the denials are admissible under the admission exception to the hearsay rule and prove plaintiff mailed the claim to the defendant and it was received. The court grants summary judgment based on the admissions in the denials annexed to the interrogatory response.
In a matter of apparent first impression, the court must analyze the Court of Appeals decision in Viviane Etienne Medical Care, P. C. v Country-Wide Insurance Company (25 NY3d 498 [2015]) to determine whether the plaintiff may prove a prima facie case based on defendant's [*2]admissions.
Here, plaintiff submitted the defendant's interrogatory response, and annexed three denials. Three IME letters scheduled examinations for June 29, 2011, July 6, 2011, and July 20, 2011. The first two do not state when the claim was made or received. The third denial, dated October 26, 2011, is based on the claimant's failure to appear for IMEs on the scheduled dates. The denial lists the claim's date and the date the defendant received the claim. Since the last missed IME was on July 20, 2011, the denial issued on October 26, 2011 was not issued within the 30 day time limit. (Insurance Law § 5106[a],11 NYCRR 65—3.8[c]).
The Appellate Term, First Department holds that any admissible evidence that shows plaintiff filed a no-fault claim, proves its prime facie case absent payment or a timely denial. Responses to notices to admit and interrogatories with admissions are admissible as admissions against interest and sufficiently prove plaintiffs' prima facie case. (Fair Price Medical Supply Inc. v St. Paul Travelers Insurance Company, 16 Misc 3d 8 [Appellate Term 1st Dept. 2007]; Central Nassau Diagnostic Imaging, PC v Geico, 28 Misc 3d 34 [Appellate Term 1st Dept 2010).
The Appellate Term, Second Department held that defendant's responses to notices to admit could not establish plaintiff's prima facie case, since the responses did not concede their admissibility. (Bath Medical Supply v Utica Mutual Ins. Co., 23 Misc 3d 141(A) [App. Term , 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2009]; Bajaj v. General Assur. Co., 18 Misc 3d 25, 28—29 [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2007]). Here, the plaintiff asks the court to grant its motion based on the admissions contained in the denials.
In Art of Healing Medicine, P.C. v Traveler's Home and Marine Insur. Co. (55 AD3d 644 [2d Dept 2008]) the Second Department held medical service providers must prove the "admissibility of their billing records under the business records rule exception to the hearsay rule."
The Appellate Term, Second Department, determined Art of Healing Medicine, P.C. (id.) required "a plaintiff medical provider, as part of its prima facie burden, to establish that the claim forms annexed to the summary judgment motion are admissible as proof of the acts, transactions, occurrences, or events recorded therein pursuant to CPLR 4518. Thus, in essence, [the Appellate Term, Second Department] required proof of the merits of the claim, in addition to proof of the billing." (Vivienne Ettiene Medical Care, P. C. v Country-Wide Insurance Company, 114 AD3d 33, 43 [2nd Dept 2013])
But, in Vivienne Ettiene Medical Care, P. C. (id.) the Second Department overruled Art of Healing. The court held plaintiff's affidavits had to demonstrate proof of billing, its receipt and not the case's merits. Id. at 44 — 45.
The Court of Appeals affirmed. (Viviane Etienne Medical Care, P. C. v Country-Wide Insurance Company (25 NY3d 498 [2015]). The court cited the no-fault claim procedures:
The regulations require an accident victim to submit a notice of claim to the insurer as soon as [*3]practicable and no later than 30 days after an accident (see [b] ). Next, the injured party or the assignee ... must submit proof of claim for medical treatment no later than 45 days after services are rendered (see 11 NYCRR 65—1.1, 65—2.4[c] ). Upon receipt of one or more of the prescribed verification forms used to establish proof of claim, ... an insurer has 15 business days within which to request "any additional verification required by the insurer to establish proof of claim" (11 NYCRR 65—3.5[b] ). An insurer may also request "the original assignment or authorization to pay benefits form to establish proof of claim" within this time frame (11 NYCRR 65—3.11[c] ). Significantly, an insurance company must pay or deny the claim within 30 calendar days after receipt of the proof of claim (see Insurance Law § 5106[a]; 11 NYCRR 65—3.8[c] ). If an insurer seeks additional verification, however, the 30—day window is tolled until it receives the relevant information requested (see 11 NYCRR 65—3.8[a] [1] ) Fair Price Med. Supply Corp. v. Travelers Indem. Co., 10 NY3d 556, 562—563 [2008], quoting Hospital for Joint Diseases, 9 NY3d 321, 317 [2007]; see Insurance Law § 5106[a] )
Thus, to meet its burden on a summary judgment motion based on an overdue payment, the court required that plaintiff prove, in admissible form, that a verification of treatment form was mailed to the defendant. Id. at 507. "Such proof may include the verification of treatment form and/or an affidavit from a person or entity (1) with knowledge of the claim and how it was sent to the insurer or (2) who has relied upon the forms in the performance of their business". (emphasis added) id. And "admissible evidence may include affidavits by persons having knowledge of the facts [and] reciting the material facts." (emphasis added) Id. at 508.
This court finds that when the Court of Appeals used the word "may" it was expansive. It envisioned that plaintiff could submit any admissible evidence to establish proper mailing and that defendant received the claim. And absent a timely denial regarding the claim forms themselves, a defendant cannot challenge the submission. Id at 506
The Court of Appeals held in a non-no-fault context that if "the party who served the interrogatories is the proponent, the hearsay problem is eliminated because the answers are admissible under the admissions exception to the hearsay rule " (United Bank Limited v Cambridge Sporting-Goods Inc. 41 NY2d 254, 263-264 [1976])
Defendant's denial included an admission by defendant that proves exactly when the defendant received the claim. If an affidavit or testimony creates a presumption of mailing then an admission by defendant that it received the claim on a date certain, absent a denial, should create a rebuttable presumption that the mail was received.
This accords with the Court's rulings that no-fault was enacted to ensure prompt payment of first- party insurance benefits "but within a short-leashed contestable period" in which to deny "ill founded, illegitimate and fraudulent claims" [Viviane Etienne, 25 NY3d at 504]. The statute was created to "provide a tightly timed process of claim, disputation and payment." Presbyterian Hospital in the City of NY v Maryland Casualty Company 90 NY2d 536, 539 [1997]
The defendant's denial admitted when it received the claim, it never challenged the claim [*4]forms or the timeliness of the denial, and had no trial witness. Thus the court holds and finds that the plaintiff met its prima facie burden of proof and is entitled to judgment.
Judgment for plaintiff in for $5036.94, plus statutory costs, interest and attorney fees.
This is the court's decision and order.
Dated: August 12, 2015ENTER
Brooklyn, NY__________________________Steven Z. MostofskyJCC
Decided on August 12, 2015
Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County
Alleviation Medical Services, PC A/A/O NADIA INNOCENT, Plaintiff
against
Hertz Co., Defendant
62883/11
Gary Tsirelman, PC, 129 Livingston St., Brooklyn, NY 11201, for Plaintiff
Robyn M. Brilliant, Esq., 333 West 39th St., New York 10018, for Defendant
Steven Z. Mostofsky, J.
Before trial, plaintiff sought summary judgment based on documentary evidence. The defendant appeared without witnesses. The parties submitted memoranda of law and the court heard oral argument on July 27, 2015.
Plaintiff claimed it served notices to admit on the defendant. Since the defendant never contested the admissions, the plaintiff moved for summary judgment. The court denies that portion of Plaintiff's motion since it never submitted the notices to admit.
Plaintiff also submitted defendant's response to interrogatories with attached denials. One denial listed the claim's date and the date defendant received it. The plaintiff moved for summary judgment because the denials are admissible under the admission exception to the hearsay rule and prove plaintiff mailed the claim to the defendant and it was received. The court grants summary judgment based on the admissions in the denials annexed to the interrogatory response.
In a matter of apparent first impression, the court must analyze the Court of Appeals decision in Viviane Etienne Medical Care, P. C. v Country-Wide Insurance Company (25 NY3d 498 [2015]) to determine whether the plaintiff may prove a prima facie case based on defendant's [*2]admissions.
Here, plaintiff submitted the defendant's interrogatory response, and annexed three denials. Three IME letters scheduled examinations for June 29, 2011, July 6, 2011, and July 20, 2011. The first two do not state when the claim was made or received. The third denial, dated October 26, 2011, is based on the claimant's failure to appear for IMEs on the scheduled dates. The denial lists the claim's date and the date the defendant received the claim. Since the last missed IME was on July 20, 2011, the denial issued on October 26, 2011 was not issued within the 30 day time limit. (Insurance Law § 5106[a],11 NYCRR 65—3.8[c]).
The Appellate Term, First Department holds that any admissible evidence that shows plaintiff filed a no-fault claim, proves its prime facie case absent payment or a timely denial. Responses to notices to admit and interrogatories with admissions are admissible as admissions against interest and sufficiently prove plaintiffs' prima facie case. (Fair Price Medical Supply Inc. v St. Paul Travelers Insurance Company, 16 Misc 3d 8 [Appellate Term 1st Dept. 2007]; Central Nassau Diagnostic Imaging, PC v Geico, 28 Misc 3d 34 [Appellate Term 1st Dept 2010).
The Appellate Term, Second Department held that defendant's responses to notices to admit could not establish plaintiff's prima facie case, since the responses did not concede their admissibility. (Bath Medical Supply v Utica Mutual Ins. Co., 23 Misc 3d 141(A) [App. Term , 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2009]; Bajaj v. General Assur. Co., 18 Misc 3d 25, 28—29 [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2007]). Here, the plaintiff asks the court to grant its motion based on the admissions contained in the denials.
In Art of Healing Medicine, P.C. v Traveler's Home and Marine Insur. Co. (55 AD3d 644 [2d Dept 2008]) the Second Department held medical service providers must prove the "admissibility of their billing records under the business records rule exception to the hearsay rule."
The Appellate Term, Second Department, determined Art of Healing Medicine, P.C. (id.) required "a plaintiff medical provider, as part of its prima facie burden, to establish that the claim forms annexed to the summary judgment motion are admissible as proof of the acts, transactions, occurrences, or events recorded therein pursuant to CPLR 4518. Thus, in essence, [the Appellate Term, Second Department] required proof of the merits of the claim, in addition to proof of the billing." (Vivienne Ettiene Medical Care, P. C. v Country-Wide Insurance Company, 114 AD3d 33, 43 [2nd Dept 2013])
But, in Vivienne Ettiene Medical Care, P. C. (id.) the Second Department overruled Art of Healing. The court held plaintiff's affidavits had to demonstrate proof of billing, its receipt and not the case's merits. Id. at 44 — 45.
The Court of Appeals affirmed. (Viviane Etienne Medical Care, P. C. v Country-Wide Insurance Company (25 NY3d 498 [2015]). The court cited the no-fault claim procedures:
The regulations require an accident victim to submit a notice of claim to the insurer as soon as [*3]practicable and no later than 30 days after an accident (see [b] ). Next, the injured party or the assignee ... must submit proof of claim for medical treatment no later than 45 days after services are rendered (see 11 NYCRR 65—1.1, 65—2.4[c] ). Upon receipt of one or more of the prescribed verification forms used to establish proof of claim, ... an insurer has 15 business days within which to request "any additional verification required by the insurer to establish proof of claim" (11 NYCRR 65—3.5[b] ). An insurer may also request "the original assignment or authorization to pay benefits form to establish proof of claim" within this time frame (11 NYCRR 65—3.11[c] ). Significantly, an insurance company must pay or deny the claim within 30 calendar days after receipt of the proof of claim (see Insurance Law § 5106[a]; 11 NYCRR 65—3.8[c] ). If an insurer seeks additional verification, however, the 30—day window is tolled until it receives the relevant information requested (see 11 NYCRR 65—3.8[a] [1] ) Fair Price Med. Supply Corp. v. Travelers Indem. Co., 10 NY3d 556, 562—563 [2008], quoting Hospital for Joint Diseases, 9 NY3d 321, 317 [2007]; see Insurance Law § 5106[a] )
Thus, to meet its burden on a summary judgment motion based on an overdue payment, the court required that plaintiff prove, in admissible form, that a verification of treatment form was mailed to the defendant. Id. at 507. "Such proof may include the verification of treatment form and/or an affidavit from a person or entity (1) with knowledge of the claim and how it was sent to the insurer or (2) who has relied upon the forms in the performance of their business". (emphasis added) id. And "admissible evidence may include affidavits by persons having knowledge of the facts [and] reciting the material facts." (emphasis added) Id. at 508.
This court finds that when the Court of Appeals used the word "may" it was expansive. It envisioned that plaintiff could submit any admissible evidence to establish proper mailing and that defendant received the claim. And absent a timely denial regarding the claim forms themselves, a defendant cannot challenge the submission. Id at 506
The Court of Appeals held in a non-no-fault context that if "the party who served the interrogatories is the proponent, the hearsay problem is eliminated because the answers are admissible under the admissions exception to the hearsay rule " (United Bank Limited v Cambridge Sporting-Goods Inc. 41 NY2d 254, 263-264 [1976])
Defendant's denial included an admission by defendant that proves exactly when the defendant received the claim. If an affidavit or testimony creates a presumption of mailing then an admission by defendant that it received the claim on a date certain, absent a denial, should create a rebuttable presumption that the mail was received.
This accords with the Court's rulings that no-fault was enacted to ensure prompt payment of first- party insurance benefits "but within a short-leashed contestable period" in which to deny "ill founded, illegitimate and fraudulent claims" [Viviane Etienne, 25 NY3d at 504]. The statute was created to "provide a tightly timed process of claim, disputation and payment." Presbyterian Hospital in the City of NY v Maryland Casualty Company 90 NY2d 536, 539 [1997]
The defendant's denial admitted when it received the claim, it never challenged the claim [*4]forms or the timeliness of the denial, and had no trial witness. Thus the court holds and finds that the plaintiff met its prima facie burden of proof and is entitled to judgment.
Judgment for plaintiff in for $5036.94, plus statutory costs, interest and attorney fees.
This is the court's decision and order.
Dated: August 12, 2015ENTER
Brooklyn, NY__________________________Steven Z. MostofskyJCC
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
