JOA Chiropractic, P.C. v. Hereford Ins. Co.

75 Misc. 3d 140(A), 2022 NY Slip Op 50598(U)

• Court: Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York
• Decided: June 17, 2022
• Docket: 2019-1052 K C
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

JOA Chiropractic, P.C. v Hereford Ins. Co. (2022 NY Slip Op 50598(U)) [*1]

JOA Chiropractic, P.C. v Hereford Ins. Co.

2022 NY Slip Op 50598(U) [75 Misc 3d 140(A)]

Decided on June 17, 2022

Appellate Term, Second Department

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on June 17, 2022

SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 2d, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS

PRESENT: : THOMAS P. ALIOTTA, P.J., DONNA-MARIE E. GOLIA, CHEREÉ A. BUGGS, JJ
2019-1052 K C

JOA Chiropractic, P.C., as Assignee of Adel Saleh, Respondent,

against

Hereford Ins. Co., Appellant.

Goldberg, Miller & Rubin, P.C. (Timothy Bishop of counsel), for appellant. Gary Tsirelman, P.C. (Douglas Mace of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Sandra E. Roper, J.), entered April 18, 2019. The order denied 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, defendant appeals from an order of the Civil Court denying defendant's motion which had sought summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the action is premature, as plaintiff failed to respond to defendant's timely requests for additional verification.

Defendant's motion was properly denied, as defendant failed to establish, prima facie, that its requests for additional verification were proper, since defendant's letters to plaintiff, which were submitted in support of the motion, merely stated that defendant was waiting for specified documents without actually requesting verification from plaintiff (see Clear Water Psychological Servs., P.C. v Hereford Ins. Co., 68 Misc 3d 127[A], 2020 NY Slip Op 50847[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2020]).

Consequently, we do not reach the merits of defendant's other arguments on appeal.

Accordingly, the order is affirmed.

ALIOTTA, P.J., GOLIA and BUGGS, JJ., concur.

ENTER:
Paul Kenny
Chief Clerk
Decision Date: June 17, 2022