Recovery of no-fault benefits requires a proper proof of claim, i.e. the completed statutory form ( 11 NYCRR 65-3.3 [d]) or its functional equivalent ( 11 NYCRR 65-3.5 [a], [f]; S M Supply Inc. v. Allstate Ins. Co., NYLJ, July 17, 2003 [App Term, 2d 11th Jud Dists]; cf. Interboro Gen. Hosp. v. Allcity Ins. Co., 149 AD2d 569, 570), and an insured's proof of a properly submitted claim generally suffices to establish its prima facie case in summary judgment ( Amaze Med. Supply Inc. v. Eagle Ins. Co., NYLJ, Dec. 29, 2003 [App Term, 2d 11th Jud Dists]). Here, however, plaintiffs inclusion of additional documents for the first time upon its motion for summary judgment, namely, a physician's prescription for medical equipment, which did not match the equipment for which benefits were sought, and a receipt for medical equipment delivered to an insured other than its assignor, raised a triable factual issue, whether certain of the no-fault benefits sought were for equipment that was not part of the prescribed course of treatment or for equipment other than what the patient actually received ( see Amaze Med. Supply Inc. v. Eagle Ins. Co., supra).