Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
NEW YORK AND PRESBYTERIAN HOSPITAL, etc., et al., plaintiffs, Mount Sinai Hospital, a/a/o Salvatore Gigante, respondent, v. TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, appellant.
In an action to recover no-fault medical payments under contracts of insurance, the defendant appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, entered March 29, 2006, which, upon an order of the same court (Brennan, J.) dated March 13, 2006, granting the motion of the plaintiff Mount Sinai Hospital, a/a/o Salvatore Gigante, for summary judgment on the third cause of action, is in favor of that plaintiff and against it in the principal sum of $30,092.49. The defendant's notice of appeal from the order is deemed to be a notice of appeal from the judgment.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
In support of its motion for summary judgment on the third cause of action, the plaintiff Mount Sinai Hospital, a/a/o Salvatore Gigante (hereinafter Mount Sinai), demonstrated its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting, inter alia, the requisite billing forms, a certified mail receipt, a signed return receipt card which referenced the patient and forms, and an affidavit of its third-party biller (see Hospital for Joint Diseases v. Travelers Prop. Cas. Ins. Co., 34 A.D.3d 532, 827 N.Y.S.2d 72; New York & Presbyt. Hosp. v. Allstate Ins. Co., 30 A.D.3d 492, 819 N.Y.S.2d 268). This evidence demonstrated that the defendant received the no-fault billing and failed to respond within the requisite 30-day period (see Insurance Law § 5106[a]; 11 NYCRR 65-3.5). The defendant failed to raise a triable issue of fact in opposition to the motion. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the motion of Mount Sinai for summary judgment on the third cause of action.
The defendant's remaining contention is improperly raised for the first time on appeal (see Rotundo v. S & C Magnetic Resonance Imaging, 255 A.D.2d 573, 681 N.Y.S.2d 68) and, in any event, is without merit (see General Construction Law § 46; William Iselin & Co. v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co., 117 A.D.2d 86, 90, 501 N.Y.S.2d 846, mod. 69 N.Y.2d 908, 516 N.Y.S.2d 198, 508 N.E.2d 932).
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: February 20, 2007
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)