FIVE BORO MEDICAL EQUIPMENT, INC. A/A/O VERONICA HALL, plf-app, v. A. CENTRAL INS. CO., def-res

16-109. FIVE BORO MEDICAL EQUIPMENT, INC. A/A/O VERONICA HALL, plf-app, v. A. CENTRAL INS. CO., def-res — Order (Nancy M. Bannon, J.) entered August 22, 2013, reversed, with $10 costs, defendant’s motion denied, and the complaint reinstated.

The defendant-insurer’s motion for summary judgment dismissing this first-party no-fault action should have been denied. Initially, we note that Civil Court correctly determined that defendant’s documentary submissions were sufficient to establish, prima facie, that its denial of claim forms were timely and properly mailed (see Preferred Mut. Ins. Co. v. Donnelly, 22 NY3d 1169 [2014]; AutoOne Ins./General Assurance v. Eastern Island Med. Care, P.C., ___AD3d__, 2016 NY Slip Op 00916 [2016]), and that the peer review reports of defendant’s chiropractor were in admissible form (see Furtow v. Jenstro Enters., Inc., 75 AD3d 494, 495 [2010]; Collins v. AA Trucking Renting Corp., 209 AD2d 363 [1994]). However, the copy of the November 4, 2011 peer review report, ostensibly submitted by defendant to establish the lack of medical necessity for the medical supplies underlying plaintiff’s claims in the amounts of $481.55 and $540.94, was incomplete, since certain pages of the report were missing, and was thus insufficient to establish the defense of lack of medical necessity.