Brand Med. Supply, Inc. v. Repwest Ins. Co.

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Brand Med. Supply, Inc. v. Repwest Ins. Co.

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedJuly 19, 2019

Docket2019 NYSlipOp 51183(U)

StatusPublished

This text of Brand Med. Supply, Inc. v. Repwest Ins. Co. (Brand Med. Supply, Inc. v. Repwest 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

Brand Med. Supply, Inc. v. Repwest Ins. Co., (N.Y. Ct. App. 2019).

Pincite

Opinion

Brand Medical Supply, Inc., as Assignee of Yazmin Arias, Appellant,

against

Repwest Ins. Co., Respondent.

Gary Tsirelman, P.C. (Darya Klein of counsel), for appellant. Bryan Cave, LLP (Laurie Belony of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Theresa M. Ciccotto, J.), entered January 11, 2017. The order, insofar as appealed from as limited by the brief, granted defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

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, defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that plaintiff's assignor had failed to appear for duly scheduled independent medical examinations (IMEs) and plaintiff cross-moved for summary judgment. Insofar as is relevant to this appeal, the Civil Court granted defendant's motion.

Plaintiff's sole argument on appeal is that defendant mailed the IME scheduling letters to the assignor's address without using an apartment number, and that, therefore, that defendant's motion should have been denied. However, the record demonstrates conclusively that the address to which defendant mailed the letters matched the address provided by plaintiff on its bill and by plaintiff's assignor on the assignor's application for no-fault benefits (NF-2). Thus, plaintiff has not demonstrated that defendant did not give the assignor proper notice of the IMEs (see Sunlight Med. Care, P.C. v Esurance Ins. Co., 49 Misc 3d 130[A], 2015 NY Slip Op 51410[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2015]).

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

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

ENTER:
Paul Kenny
Chief Clerk
Decision Date: July 19, 2019

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

Brand Medical Supply, Inc., as Assignee of Yazmin Arias, Appellant,

against

Repwest Ins. Co., Respondent.

Gary Tsirelman, P.C. (Darya Klein of counsel), for appellant. Bryan Cave, LLP (Laurie Belony of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Theresa M. Ciccotto, J.), entered January 11, 2017. The order, insofar as appealed from as limited by the brief, granted defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

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, defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that plaintiff's assignor had failed to appear for duly scheduled independent medical examinations (IMEs) and plaintiff cross-moved for summary judgment. Insofar as is relevant to this appeal, the Civil Court granted defendant's motion.

Plaintiff's sole argument on appeal is that defendant mailed the IME scheduling letters to the assignor's address without using an apartment number, and that, therefore, that defendant's motion should have been denied. However, the record demonstrates conclusively that the address to which defendant mailed the letters matched the address provided by plaintiff on its bill and by plaintiff's assignor on the assignor's application for no-fault benefits (NF-2). Thus, plaintiff has not demonstrated that defendant did not give the assignor proper notice of the IMEs (see Sunlight Med. Care, P.C. v Esurance Ins. Co., 49 Misc 3d 130[A], 2015 NY Slip Op 51410[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2015]).

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

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

ENTER:
Paul Kenny
Chief Clerk
Decision Date: July 19, 2019

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Brand Med. Supply, Inc. v. Repwest Ins. Co., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brand-med-supply-inc-v-repwest-ins-co-nyappterm-2019.