Cortland Med. Supply, Inc. v 21st Century Centennial Ins. Co.
2014 NY Slip Op 51886(U) [46 Misc 3d 136(A)]
Decided on December 31, 2014
Appellate Term, First Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on December 31, 2014
PRESENT: Lowe, III, P.J., Schoenfeld, Hunter, Jr., JJ.

Cortland Med. Supply, Inc., a/a/o Cristian Yax Garcia Plaintiff-Appellant,


21st Century Centennial Ins. Co. Defendant-Respondent.

Plaintiff appeals from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County (Jennifer G. Schecter, J.), entered September 18, 2013, which granted defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Per Curiam.

Order (Jennifer G. Schecter, J.), entered September 18, 2013, affirmed with $10 costs.

The defendant-insurer made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that it timely and properly denied plaintiff's claim for no-fault first-party benefits, through the affidavits of employees of its mailing center and of the entity which administers its no-fault claims, detailing their respective office mailing procedures, accompanied by a certificate of mailing (see Nassau Ins. Co. v Murray, 46 NY2d 828, 829 [1978]; Badio v Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 12 AD3d 229,330 [2004]), and the peer review report of its orthopedic doctor, which set forth a sufficient factual basis and medical rationale for her stated conclusion that the medical supplies provided by plaintiff to its assignor were not medically necessary (see Triangle R. Inc. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 32 Misc 3d 143[A], 2011 NY Slip Op 51663[U] [App Term, 1st Dept 2011]). Plaintiff's opposition, consisting of an attorney's affirmation unaccompanied by any medical evidence or other competent proof, was insufficient to raise a triable issue as to medical necessity (see Munoz v Hollingsworth, 18 AD3d 278, 279 [2005]; CPT Med. Servs., P.C. v NY Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 18 Misc 3d 87 [2007]).

Plaintiff's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit.


I concur I concur I concur

Decision Date: December 31, 2014