RECITATION, AS REQUIRED BY CPLR2219 (A), OF THE PAPERS CONSIDERED IN THE REVIEW OF THIS MOTION:Notice of Motion 1Notice of Cross-MotionAnswering Affidavit 2Reply AffidavitDECISION AND ORDER In this action to recover first party no fault benefits, defendant moves for an order granting summary judgment and dismissing the complaint based on plaintiff’s failure to respond within 120 days to defendant’s initial request for verification.In support of the motion, defendant submits the affidavits of its claim examiner in New York, Ms. McAndrews, and an employee of Auto Injury Solutions “AIS,” in Alabama, Ms. Ulmer. AIS is retained by defendant to receive and disseminate incoming mail related to no fault claims made against defendant, and, to mail medical providers or their assignees, verification requests which claims adjusters in New York electronically transmit to AIS. Ms. Ulmer submits two different affidavits, both dated August 4, 2017, which set forth AIS’s procedure for mailing verification requests, and procedure for documenting its receipt of incoming mail. Ms. McAndrews’ affidavit describes defendant’s procedure for electronically preparing and transmitting to AIS, defendant’s requests for verifications and denials.Summary judgment is a drastic remedy (See Sillman v. Twentieth Century- Fox Film Corporation, 3 NY2d 395, 165 NYS2d 498 [957]), which should not be granted if there is any doubt as to the existence of a triable issue of fact. (See Rotuba Extruders, Inc. v. Ceppos, 46 NY2d 223, 413 NYS2d 141 [1978]). Hence, the court’s function in determining such a motion, is issue finding, not issue determination. (Id. Sillman at 395).To prevail, the movant must establish entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, by submitting admissible evidentiary proof. (See Friends of Animals, Inc. v. Associate Fur Manufacturers, Inc., 46 NY2d 1065, 416 NYS2d 790 [1979]). Absent such a showing, the motion must be denied regardless of the sufficiency of opposing papers. (See Winegrad v. New York University Medical Center, 64 NY2d 851, 487 NYS2d 316 [1985]).“A claim need not be paid or denied until all demanded verification is provided.” (New York & Presbyt. Hosp. v. Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 5 AD3d 568, 570, 774 NYS2d 72 [2d Dept 2004]; 11 NYCRR 65-3.5 [c]; 65-3.8 [a] [1].) If plaintiff fails to provide the requested verification within 120 calendar days from the date of the initial request, the insurer may deny the claim. (11 NYCRR 65-3.5 [o]).In the instant action, the basis of defendant’s motion, to wit, plaintiff’s failure to provide requested verifications, requires defendant to unequivocally prove by admissible evidence that it did not receive the requested verification. Defendant’s conclusory denial of receipt, is insufficient to make out prima facie showing of defendant’s entitlement to summary judgment. (See Compas Med., P.C. v. New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 50 Misc. 3d 146[A], 36 N.Y.S.3d 46 [App Term, 2nd Dept 2016]).While any mail containing plaintiff’s response to verification request would have been received by AIS in Alabama, Ms. McAndrews, defendant’s adjuster in New York, is the only affiant who states that AIS did not receive response to the verification requests, absent any evidence of her personal knowledge of AIS’s incoming mail procedures. Without demonstrating her personal knowledge of AIS’s internal mailing practices, Ms. McAndrew’s assertion that AIS did not receive verification responses lacks probative value. (see J.O.V. Acupuncture, P.C. v. Amex Assur. Co., 55 Misc. 3d 127[A], 55 N.Y.S.3d 692 [App Term, 1st Dept 2017]).Ms. Ulmer, the affiant purportedly knowledgeable of AIS’s mailing procedures, states that she conducted a diligent search of the records in possession of AIS regarding the instant matter. She then lists the records, which she states are “annexed hereto,” but does not identify any exhibit, to which the described records are attached. Rather, there are some exhibits to the motion that contain records, which only defense counsel references in his affirmation. However, defense counsel does not submit proof, that the records annexed to the exhibits, are the same records which Ms. Ulmer has referenced in her affidavit, or proof that the records are the entirety of the documents Ms. Ulmer has acquired.Absent admissible evidence that the documents contained in the exhibits represent the totality of all documents obtained by Ms. Ulmer, defendant fails to establish, through any exhibit, the nature and the extend of the records that are in AIS’s possession.Furthermore, Ms. Ulmer’s affidavit describing the records she has obtained through her search, is ambiguous, indefinite and insufficient to establish defendant’s burden that AIS has not received response to the verification requests.Ms. Ulmer’s states that her “investigation revealed the following:” which she then attempts to numerically describe. Yet, Ms. Ulmer’s numeric description refers only to events, not the essence of the document necessary for its identification. Immediately appearing after the number one, the affidavit states: “document was received by AIS on 1/18/2017,” after number two, that “the document was indexed,” following numbers four and the five that “copies of EOR and NF10 were sent to the provider” and “to the assignor.”As to item number three, Ms. Ulmer states that “the charges listed on the bill totaled $1039.69″ without providing any further details.The inherent vagueness of Ms. Ulmer’s description of the records she has obtained, precludes defendant from proving that AIS has not received response to the verification requests.Moreover, while Ms. Ulmer could have avoided the ambiguity by unequivocally stating that her search did not reveal any response to the verification requests, Ms. Ulmer, in contrast to Ms. McAndrews, does not make any such statement. Nor does she state that the records which she vaguely describes, are the only records obtained through her search, or that other AIS has not received any additional records.Furthermore, the ambiguous affidavit becomes evidently inaccurate, when Ms. Ulmer incorrectly states “all the documents” (including the bill prepared by plaintiff in the sum of $1039.69) were “prepared” in the regular course of” business of AIS, underscoring the unreliability the affidavit.The Court further notes that Ms. Ulmer submits two distinct affidavits that are both executed in Alabama on August 4, 2017. CPLR 2309(c) states that an oath taken outside of New York State must be accompanied by a certificate, commonly referred to as “certificate of conformity” attesting that the oath that was taken in the foreign state was done so in accordance with the laws of that jurisdiction or of New York.Defendant fails to produce an original “certificate of conformity” for either affidavit. Instead, defendant annexes to both affidavits identical copies a single certificate of conformity. Even, should the court accept copies of the certificate of conformity in lieu of the original, defendant’s failure to provide copies of two separate certificate of conformities, one for each affidavit, renders the affidavits inadmissible as a matter of law.Based on the foregoing, defendant failed to establish its entitlement to summary judgement by admissible evidence. Defendant’s motion for summary judgement is therefore denied.Dated: November 21, 2018
