Opinion
2002-1684 K C.
Decided February 26, 2004.
Appeal by plaintiff from an order of the Civil Court, Kings County (A. Schack, J.), entered October 7, 2002, denying its motion for summary judgment.
Order unanimously affirmed without costs.
PRESENT: PESCE, P.J., ARONIN and PATTERSON, JJ.
Recovery of no-fault benefits requires a proper proof of claim, i.e. the completed statutory form ( 11 NYCRR 65-3.3 [d]) or its functional equivalent ( 11 NYCRR 65-3.5 [a], [f]; S M Supply Inc. v. Allstate Ins. Co., NYLJ, July 17, 2003 [App Term, 2d 11th Jud Dists]; cf. Interboro Gen. Hosp. v. Allcity Ins. Co., 149 AD2d 569, 570), and an insured's proof of a properly submitted claim generally suffices to establish its prima facie case in summary judgment ( Amaze Med. Supply Inc. v. Eagle Ins. Co., NYLJ, Dec. 29, 2003 [App Term, 2d 11th Jud Dists]). Here, however, plaintiffs inclusion of additional documents for the first time upon its motion for summary judgment, namely, a physician's prescription for medical equipment, which did not match the equipment for which benefits were sought, and a receipt for medical equipment delivered to an insured other than its assignor, raised a triable factual issue, whether certain of the no-fault benefits sought were for equipment that was not part of the prescribed course of treatment or for equipment other than what the patient actually received ( see Amaze Med. Supply Inc. v. Eagle Ins. Co., supra).