Opinion
No. 570565/14.
2014-11-3
NJ/NY PAIN MANAGEMENT and Neal Goldsmith, D.C. a/a/o Christine Montanez, Plaintiffs–Respondents, v. ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant–Appellant.
Defendant, as limited by its brief, appeals from so much of an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County (Ann E. O'Shea, J.), dated October 17, 2011, as granted plaintiffs' cross motion for summary judgment on the complaint.
Present: SCHOENFELD, J.P., SHULMAN, LING–COHAN, JJ. PER CURIAM.
Order (Ann E. O'Shea, J.), dated October 17, 2011, affirmed, with $10 costs.
Plaintiffs-providers established prima facie their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that the necessary billing documents were mailed to and received by defendant-insurer and that payment of the no-fault benefits was overdue ( see Insurance Law § 5106[a]; 11 NYCRR 65–3.8[a] [1]; Countrywide Ins. Co. v. 563 Grand Med., P.C., 50 AD3d 313 [2008] ).
In opposition, defendant failed to raise a triable issue. Although defendant showed that it timely denied the claim on the ground of medical necessity, it failed to submit the IME report upon which its denial was based or any other evidentiary proof to support its defense of medical necessity ( see Vista Surgical Supplies, Inc. v. Travelers Ins. Co., 50 AD3d 778 [2008]; Mollins v. Allstate Ins. Co., 20 Misc.3d 141[A], 2008 N.Y. Slip Op 51616[U][App Term, 1st Dept 2008]; cf. NYU–Hospital for Joint Diseases v. Esurance Ins. Co., 84 AD3d 1190 [2011] ). In the absence of “evidentiary facts” showing that a “bona fide” issue exists ( see Rotuba Extruders v. Ceppos, 46 N.Y.2d 223, 231 [1979] ) as to the medical necessity of the services here at issue, plaintiff's cross motion for summary judgment was properly granted.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.
I concur.