Eagle Surgical Supply, Inc. v. Citiwide Auto Leasing, Inc.

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York
DecidedJune 1, 2018
Docket2018 NYSlipOp 50844(U)
StatusPublished

This text of Eagle Surgical Supply, Inc. v. Citiwide Auto Leasing, Inc. (Eagle Surgical Supply, Inc. v. Citiwide Auto Leasing, Inc.) 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
Eagle Surgical Supply, Inc. v. Citiwide Auto Leasing, Inc., (N.Y. Ct. App. 2018).

Opinion



Eagle Surgical Supply, Inc., as Assignee of Oraude Boston, Appellant,

against

Citiwide Auto Leasing, Inc., Respondent.


Korsunskiy Legal Group, P.C. (Henry R. Guindi of counsel), for appellant. Miller, Leiby & Associates, P.C. (Melissa M. Wolin 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 November 12, 2015. The order granted defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with $25 costs.

In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Civil Court which granted defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that plaintiff's assignor had failed to appear for duly scheduled independent medical examinations (IMEs).

Contrary to plaintiff's contention, the affidavit submitted by the acupuncturist who was to perform the IMEs was sufficient to establish that plaintiff's assignor had failed to appear for the IMEs (see Stephen Fogel Psychological, P.C. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 35 AD3d 720, 722 [2006]). Furthermore, there is no merit to plaintiff's remaining argument that defendant was required to communicate with plaintiff's assignor's attorney pursuant to 11 NYCRR 65—3.6 (b). That subsection, which is not implicated here, requires an insurer to communicate with an applicant's attorney in certain situations involving claims that are tolled for outstanding verification.

Accordingly, the order is affirmed.

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


ENTER:
Paul Kenny
Chief Clerk
Decision Date: June 01, 2018

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

Related

Stephen Fogel Psychological, P.C. v. Progressive Casualty Insurance
35 A.D.3d 720 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Eagle Surgical Supply, Inc. v. Citiwide Auto Leasing, Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/eagle-surgical-supply-inc-v-citiwide-auto-leasing-inc-nyappterm-2018.