Lenex Servs., Inc. v. Global Liberty Ins. of N.Y.

69 Misc. 3d 145(A), 2020 NY Slip Op 51382(U)

• Court: Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York
• Decided: November 13, 2020
• Docket: 2019-133 K C
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Lenex Servs., Inc. v Global Liberty Ins. of N.Y. (2020 NY Slip Op 51382(U)) [*1]

Lenex Servs., Inc. v Global Liberty Ins. of N.Y.

2020 NY Slip Op 51382(U) [69 Misc 3d 145(A)]

Decided on November 13, 2020

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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 November 13, 2020

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

PRESENT: : THOMAS P. ALIOTTA, P.J., DAVID ELLIOT, BERNICE D. SIEGAL, JJ
2019-133 K C

Lenex Services, Inc., as Assignee of Timothy Wallace, Respondent,

against

Global Liberty Ins. of NY, Appellant.

Law Office of Jason Tenenbaum, P.C. (Shaaker Bhuiyan of counsel), for appellant. Zara Javakov, P.C. (Zara Javakov of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Cenceria P. Edwards, J.), entered November 27, 2018. The order, insofar as appealed from, denied 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 appeals from so much of an order of the Civil Court as denied defendant's motion which had sought 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 defendant's contention, defendant's moving papers were insufficient to establish that the letters scheduling IMEs had been properly addressed and mailed (see St. Vincent's Hosp. of Richmond v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 50 AD3d 1123 [2008]). As a result, defendant failed to demonstrate that the IMEs had been properly scheduled and, thus, that plaintiff's assignor had failed to appear at duly scheduled IMEs (see Stephen Fogel Psychological, P.C. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 35 AD3d 720, 722 [2006]). Consequently, defendant is not entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

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

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

ENTER:
Paul Kenny
Chief Clerk
Decision Date: November 13, 2020