Elmont Rehab P.T., P.C. v. New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co.

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Elmont Rehab P.T., P.C. v. New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co.

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedJuly 21, 2017

Docket2017 NYSlipOp 50961(U)

StatusPublished

This text of Elmont Rehab P.T., P.C. v. New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. (Elmont Rehab P.T., P.C. v. New York Cent. Mut. Fire 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

Elmont Rehab P.T., P.C. v. New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

Elmont Rehab P.T., P.C., as Assignee of Gamero, Alfredo, Respondent,

against

New York Central Mutual Fire Insurance Company, Appellant.

Gullo & Associates, LLP ( Natalie Socorro, Esq.), for appellant. The Rybak Firm, PLLC ( Damin J. Toell, Esq.), for respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Harriet L. Thompson, J.), entered April 11, 2014. The order denied defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

ORDERED that the order is reversed, with $30 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 Civil Court denying defendant's motion which sought summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that plaintiff's assignor had failed to appear for duly scheduled independent medical examinations (IMEs).

In support of its motion, defendant established that, before receiving the claims at issue, it had mailed letters scheduling an initial and follow-up IME to plaintiff's assignor (see St. Vincent's Hosp. of Richmond v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 50 AD3d 1123 [2008]). Defendant also established that the assignor had failed to appear for the duly scheduled IMEs (see Stephen Fogel Psychological, P.C. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 35 AD3d 720 [2006]). Thus, defendant demonstrated that plaintiff had failed to comply with a condition precedent to coverage (id. at 722). As defendant's moving papers established that defendant had timely denied (see St. Vincent's Hosp. of Richmond, 50 AD3d 1123) the claims on that ground, and plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact in opposition to defendant's motion, defendant was entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

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

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

ENTER:
Paul Kenny
Chief Clerk
Decision Date: July 21, 2017

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

Elmont Rehab P.T., P.C., as Assignee of Gamero, Alfredo, Respondent,

against

New York Central Mutual Fire Insurance Company, Appellant.

Gullo & Associates, LLP ( Natalie Socorro, Esq.), for appellant. The Rybak Firm, PLLC ( Damin J. Toell, Esq.), for respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Harriet L. Thompson, J.), entered April 11, 2014. The order denied defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

ORDERED that the order is reversed, with $30 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 Civil Court denying defendant's motion which sought summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that plaintiff's assignor had failed to appear for duly scheduled independent medical examinations (IMEs).

In support of its motion, defendant established that, before receiving the claims at issue, it had mailed letters scheduling an initial and follow-up IME to plaintiff's assignor (see St. Vincent's Hosp. of Richmond v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 50 AD3d 1123 [2008]). Defendant also established that the assignor had failed to appear for the duly scheduled IMEs (see Stephen Fogel Psychological, P.C. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 35 AD3d 720 [2006]). Thus, defendant demonstrated that plaintiff had failed to comply with a condition precedent to coverage (id. at 722). As defendant's moving papers established that defendant had timely denied (see St. Vincent's Hosp. of Richmond, 50 AD3d 1123) the claims on that ground, and plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact in opposition to defendant's motion, defendant was entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

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

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

ENTER:
Paul Kenny
Chief Clerk
Decision Date: July 21, 2017

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Elmont Rehab P.T., P.C. v. New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/elmont-rehab-pt-pc-v-new-york-cent-mut-fire-ins-co-nyappterm-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack