21st Century Pharmacy, Inc. v. Ameriprise Ins. Co.

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

21st Century Pharmacy, Inc. v. Ameriprise Ins. Co.

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedOctober 11, 2019

Docket2019 NYSlipOp 51629(U)

StatusPublished

This text of 21st Century Pharmacy, Inc. v. Ameriprise Ins. Co. (21st Century Pharmacy, Inc. v. Ameriprise Ins. Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

21st Century Pharmacy, Inc. v. Ameriprise Ins. Co., (N.Y. Ct. App. 2019).

Pincite

Opinion

21st Century Pharmacy, Inc., as Assignee of Christine Parkash, Appellant,

against

Ameriprise Insurance Company, Respondent.

Zara Javakov, P.C. (Zara Javakov of counsel), for appellant. Bruno, Gerbino & Soriano, LLP (Nathan Shapiro of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Harriet L. Thompson, J.), entered March 2, 2018. The order, insofar as appealed from as limited by the brief, upon reargument, granted defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, which had been denied in an order of that court entered December 9, 2016.

ORDERED that the order, insofar as appealed from, is affirmed, with $25 costs.

In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, plaintiff appeals, as limited by the brief, from so much of an order of the Civil Court as, upon reargument, granted defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, which had been denied in an order of that court entered December 9, 2016.

Contrary to plaintiff's contention, defendant was not required to set forth objective reasons for requesting examinations under oath (EUOs) in order to establish its prima facie entitlement to summary judgment, as an insurer need only demonstrate "as a matter of law that it twice duly demanded an [EUO] from the [provider] . . . that the [provider] twice failed to appear, and that the [insurer] issued a timely denial of the claim[]" (Interboro Ins. Co. v Clennon, 113 AD3d 596, 597 [2014]; see Parisien v Metlife Auto & Home, 54 Misc 3d 143[A], 2017 NY Slip Op 50208[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2017]; Palafox PT, P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 49 Misc 3d 144[A], 2015 NY Slip Op 51653[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, [*2]2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2015]).

Accordingly, the order, insofar as appealed from, is affirmed.

PESCE, P.J., ALIOTTA and SIEGAL, JJ., concur.

ENTER:
Paul Kenny
Chief Clerk
Decision Date: October 11, 2019

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

21st Century Pharmacy, Inc., as Assignee of Christine Parkash, Appellant,

against

Ameriprise Insurance Company, Respondent.

Zara Javakov, P.C. (Zara Javakov of counsel), for appellant. Bruno, Gerbino & Soriano, LLP (Nathan Shapiro of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Harriet L. Thompson, J.), entered March 2, 2018. The order, insofar as appealed from as limited by the brief, upon reargument, granted defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, which had been denied in an order of that court entered December 9, 2016.

ORDERED that the order, insofar as appealed from, is affirmed, with $25 costs.

In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, plaintiff appeals, as limited by the brief, from so much of an order of the Civil Court as, upon reargument, granted defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, which had been denied in an order of that court entered December 9, 2016.

Contrary to plaintiff's contention, defendant was not required to set forth objective reasons for requesting examinations under oath (EUOs) in order to establish its prima facie entitlement to summary judgment, as an insurer need only demonstrate "as a matter of law that it twice duly demanded an [EUO] from the [provider] . . . that the [provider] twice failed to appear, and that the [insurer] issued a timely denial of the claim[]" (Interboro Ins. Co. v Clennon, 113 AD3d 596, 597 [2014]; see Parisien v Metlife Auto & Home, 54 Misc 3d 143[A], 2017 NY Slip Op 50208[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2017]; Palafox PT, P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 49 Misc 3d 144[A], 2015 NY Slip Op 51653[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, [*2]2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2015]).

Accordingly, the order, insofar as appealed from, is affirmed.

PESCE, P.J., ALIOTTA and SIEGAL, JJ., concur.

ENTER:
Paul Kenny
Chief Clerk
Decision Date: October 11, 2019

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

21st Century Pharmacy, Inc. v. Ameriprise Ins. Co., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/21st-century-pharmacy-inc-v-ameriprise-ins-co-nyappterm-2019.