Opinion
2005-365 KC.
Decided June 22, 2006.
Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Arlene Bluth, J.), entered February 8, 2005. The order granted plaintiff's motion for summary judgment in the principal sum of $1,644.74.
Order reversed without costs, plaintiff's motion for summary judgment denied and, upon searching the record, defendant is awarded summary judgment and complaint dismissed.
PRESENT: PESCE, P.J., WESTON PATTERSON and RIOS, JJ.
In this action to recover first-party no-fault benefits for health care services rendered to its assignor, plaintiff moved for summary judgment. Where a billing provider seeks to recover no-fault benefits for services which were not rendered by it or its employees, but rather by a treating provider who is an independent contractor, it is not a "provider" of the medical services rendered within the meaning of 11 NYCRR 65-3.11 [a] and is therefore not entitled to recover "direct payment" of assigned no-fault benefits from the defendant insurer ( see Craig Antell, D.O., P.C. v. New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 11 Misc 3d 137 [A], 2006 NY Slip Op 50521[U] [App Term, 1st Dept]; A.B. Med. Servs. PLLC v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 9 Misc 3d 36 [App Term, 2nd 11th Jud Dists 2005]; A.B. Med. Servs. PLLC v. New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 8 Misc 3d 132 [A], 2005 NY Slip Op 51111[U] [App Term, 2d 11th Jud Dists.]).
In the case at bar, the plaintiff's claim form states that the treating professional was an independent contractor. Under the circumstances, plaintiff's motion for summary judgment should be denied and, upon searching the record, summary judgment should be awarded to defendant dismissing the action ( see A.B. Med. Servs. PLLC v. New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 8 Misc 3d 132, supra; see generally Dunham v. Hilco Constr. Co., 89 NY2d 425, 429; Murray v. Murray, AD3d, 2006 NY Slip Op 02861).
Pesce, P.J., Weston Patterson and Rios, JJ., concur.