Per Curiam
Insurer GEICO appealed from a Civil Court order denying its cross-motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint that sought to recover on a claim for supplies furnished on Dec. 16, 2008. Provider Promed Durable Equipment sought to recover no-fault benefits. The panel found, contrary to GEICO's argument on appeal, Promed established the submission of bills, and the fact and amount of the loss sustained, declining to disturb the civil court's implicit finding those facts were established in the action. It noted GEICO submitted a peer review report setting forth a factual basis and medical rational for the doctor's determination there was a lack of medical necessity for supplies furnished on Oct. 23, 2008. Yet, the panel found Promed submitted an affirmation by a doctor sufficient to raise a triable issue if these supplies were medically necessary, ruling this portion of GEICO's cross-motion was properly denied. The unanimous panel found, however, the portion of GEICO's cross-motion seeking dismissal of the complaint that sought to recover on a claim for supplies furnished on Dec. 16, 2008 should have been granted as Promed's submission in opposition failed to rebut GEICO's peer review determination there was a lack of medical necessity for the supplies.
