Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004

Ocean Diagnostic Imaging P.C. v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance

Ocean Diagnostic Imaging P.C. v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance
Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided September 17, 2004
5 Misc. 3d 53; 785 N.Y.S.2d 269; 2004 NY Slip Op 24342; 2004 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1532

Counsel

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL, Amos Weinberg, Great Neck, for appellant. Bruno Gerbino & Macchia LLP, Melville, and Rivkin Radler LLP, Uniondale (.Evan H. Krinick and Stuart M. Bodoff of counsel), for respondent.

Ocean Diagnostic Imaging P.C. v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance

Opinion of the Court

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

Order insofar as appealed from unanimously affirmed with $10 costs.

Plaintiff, a health care provider, seeking to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, established a prima facie entitlement to summary judgment by the submission of a complete proof of claim and the amount of the loss (see Insurance Law § 5106 [a]; Mary Immaculate Hosp. v Allstate Ins. Co., 5 AD3d 742 [2004]; Amaze Med. Supply v Eagle Ins. Co., 2 Misc 3d 128[A], 2003 NY Slip Op 51701[U] [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2003]). Defendant failed to deny the claim within the statutory 30-day claim determination period (11 NYCRR 65.15 [g] [3]). Defendant’s requests for examinations under oath did not toll the 30-day period, inasmuch as the insurance regulation in effect at the time plaintiff submitted its claim did not contain a provision requiring a claimant to appear for an examination under oath (see A.B. Med. Servs. PLLC v Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co., 2003 NY Slip Op 51392[U] [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2003]). Accordingly, defendant is precluded from raising most defenses (see Presbyterian Hosp. in City of N.Y.v Maryland Cas. Co., 90 NY2d 274, 282 [1997]).

However, an untimely denial does not preclude a defendant from asserting the defense that the collision was a staged event in furtherance of an insurance fraud scheme (see Matter of Metro Med. Diagnostics v Eagle Ins. Co., 293 AD2d 751 [2002]). The investigator’s affidavit set forth sufficient facts to demonstrate that defendant possessed a “founded belief that the alleged injur[ies] do[ ] not arise out of an insured incident” (Central Gen. Hosp. v Chubb Group of Ins. Cos., 90 NY2d 195, 199 [1997]). As a result, because defendant demonstrated the existence of a triable issue of fact as to whether there was a lack of coverage (see id.), plaintiffs motion for summary judgment was properly denied.

McCabe, P.J., Rudolph and Angiolillo, JJ., concur.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.