Central Park Physical Medicine & Rehab., P.C. v. IDS Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co.

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Central Park Physical Medicine & Rehab., P.C. v. IDS Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co.

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedJuly 11, 2019

Docket2019 NYSlipOp 51148(U)

StatusPublished

This text of Central Park Physical Medicine & Rehab., P.C. v. IDS Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. (Central Park Physical Medicine & Rehab., P.C. v. IDS Prop. & Cas. 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

Central Park Physical Medicine & Rehab., P.C. v. IDS Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., (N.Y. Ct. App. 2019).

Pincite

Opinion

Central Park Physical Medicine & Rehab., P.C., as Assignee of Rafsan Choudhry, Respondent,

against

IDS Property & Casualty Insurance Company, Appellant.

Bruno, Gerbino & Soriano, LLP (Nathan Shapiro of counsel), for appellant. Sanders Barshay Grossman, LLC (Steven J. Neuwirth of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal from an order of the District Court of Suffolk County, Fourth District (James F. Matthews, J.), dated October 12, 2017. The order denied defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

ORDERED that the order is reversed, without costs, and defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted.

In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, defendant appeals from an order of the District Court which denied defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Defendant established that it had timely mailed (see St. Vincent's Hosp. of Richmond v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 50 AD3d 1123 [2008]) each of the examination under oath (EUO) scheduling letters by both first-class and certified mail, return receipt requested. While the District Court held that defendant had failed to establish that the follow-up EUO scheduling letter had been mailed by certified mail, that finding, even if correct, would not excuse the failure of plaintiff to appear for the duly scheduled EUOs, since the record does not contain any evidence showing that the mailing of the EUO scheduling letters to plaintiff by first-class mail had been insufficient (see MML Med. Care, P.C. v Praetorian Ins. Co., 46 Misc 3d 127[A], 2014 NY Slip Op 51792[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2014]). Defendant further demonstrated that plaintiff had failed to appear for the duly scheduled EUOs (see Stephen Fogel Psychological, P.C. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 35 AD3d 720 [2006]), and that defendant had timely mailed (see St. Vincent's Hosp. of Richmond, 50 AD3d 1123) the denial of claim forms, which denied the claims on the ground that plaintiff had failed to appear for the duly scheduled EUOs. Plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact in opposition to defendant's prima facie showing.

Accordingly, the order is reversed and defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted.

ADAMS, P.J., GARGUILO and EMERSON, JJ., concur.

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

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

Central Park Physical Medicine & Rehab., P.C., as Assignee of Rafsan Choudhry, Respondent,

against

IDS Property & Casualty Insurance Company, Appellant.

Bruno, Gerbino & Soriano, LLP (Nathan Shapiro of counsel), for appellant. Sanders Barshay Grossman, LLC (Steven J. Neuwirth of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal from an order of the District Court of Suffolk County, Fourth District (James F. Matthews, J.), dated October 12, 2017. The order denied defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

ORDERED that the order is reversed, without costs, and defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted.

In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, defendant appeals from an order of the District Court which denied defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Defendant established that it had timely mailed (see St. Vincent's Hosp. of Richmond v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 50 AD3d 1123 [2008]) each of the examination under oath (EUO) scheduling letters by both first-class and certified mail, return receipt requested. While the District Court held that defendant had failed to establish that the follow-up EUO scheduling letter had been mailed by certified mail, that finding, even if correct, would not excuse the failure of plaintiff to appear for the duly scheduled EUOs, since the record does not contain any evidence showing that the mailing of the EUO scheduling letters to plaintiff by first-class mail had been insufficient (see MML Med. Care, P.C. v Praetorian Ins. Co., 46 Misc 3d 127[A], 2014 NY Slip Op 51792[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2014]). Defendant further demonstrated that plaintiff had failed to appear for the duly scheduled EUOs (see Stephen Fogel Psychological, P.C. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 35 AD3d 720 [2006]), and that defendant had timely mailed (see St. Vincent's Hosp. of Richmond, 50 AD3d 1123) the denial of claim forms, which denied the claims on the ground that plaintiff had failed to appear for the duly scheduled EUOs. Plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact in opposition to defendant's prima facie showing.

Accordingly, the order is reversed and defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted.

ADAMS, P.J., GARGUILO and EMERSON, JJ., concur.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Central Park Physical Medicine & Rehab., P.C. v. IDS Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/central-park-physical-medicine-rehab-pc-v-ids-prop-cas-ins-co-nyappterm-2019.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack