Lenox Hill Radiology & MIA, P.C. v. Global Liberty Ins. Co. of N.Y.

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Lenox Hill Radiology & MIA, P.C. v. Global Liberty Ins. Co. of N.Y.

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedDecember 6, 2018

Docket2018 NYSlipOp 51810(U)

StatusPublished

This text of Lenox Hill Radiology & MIA, P.C. v. Global Liberty Ins. Co. of N.Y. (Lenox Hill Radiology & MIA, P.C. v. Global Liberty Ins. Co. of N.Y.) 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

Lenox Hill Radiology & MIA, P.C. v. Global Liberty Ins. Co. of N.Y., (N.Y. Ct. App. 2018).

Pincite

Opinion

Lenox Hill Radiology and MIA, P.C., as Assignee of Manuel Garza, Respondent,

against

Global Liberty Insurance Company of New York, Appellant.

Law Office of Jason Tenenbaum, P.C. (Jonathan Depasquale, Jason Tenenbaum and Talia Beard of counsel), for appellant. Baker Sanders, LLC, for respondent (no brief filed).

Appeal from an order of the District Court of Suffolk County, Fourth District (James F. Matthews, J.), dated July 6, 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 moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, arguing that the action was premature inasmuch as the time in which defendant had to pay or deny plaintiff's claims had been tolled because plaintiff had failed to respond to timely requests for verification. By order dated July 6, 2017, the District Court denied the motion.

Contrary to the determination of the District Court, defendant established the timely mailing of the initial and follow-up verification requests (see St. Vincent's Hosp. of Richmond v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 50 AD3d 1123 [2008]). As defendant also sufficiently established that it had not received the requested verification, and plaintiff did not show that the verification had been provided to defendant prior to the commencement of the action, the 30-day period within which defendant was required to pay or deny the claims did not begin to run (see 11 NYCRR 65-3.5 [c]; 65-3.8 [a]; Central Suffolk Hosp. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 24 AD3d 492 [2005]), and, thus, plaintiff's action is premature.

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

GARGUILO, J.P., MARANO and TOLBERT, JJ., concur.

ENTER:
Paul Kenny
Chief Clerk
Decision Date: December 06, 2018

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

Lenox Hill Radiology and MIA, P.C., as Assignee of Manuel Garza, Respondent,

against

Global Liberty Insurance Company of New York, Appellant.

Law Office of Jason Tenenbaum, P.C. (Jonathan Depasquale, Jason Tenenbaum and Talia Beard of counsel), for appellant. Baker Sanders, LLC, for respondent (no brief filed).

Appeal from an order of the District Court of Suffolk County, Fourth District (James F. Matthews, J.), dated July 6, 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 moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, arguing that the action was premature inasmuch as the time in which defendant had to pay or deny plaintiff's claims had been tolled because plaintiff had failed to respond to timely requests for verification. By order dated July 6, 2017, the District Court denied the motion.

Contrary to the determination of the District Court, defendant established the timely mailing of the initial and follow-up verification requests (see St. Vincent's Hosp. of Richmond v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 50 AD3d 1123 [2008]). As defendant also sufficiently established that it had not received the requested verification, and plaintiff did not show that the verification had been provided to defendant prior to the commencement of the action, the 30-day period within which defendant was required to pay or deny the claims did not begin to run (see 11 NYCRR 65-3.5 [c]; 65-3.8 [a]; Central Suffolk Hosp. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 24 AD3d 492 [2005]), and, thus, plaintiff's action is premature.

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

GARGUILO, J.P., MARANO and TOLBERT, JJ., concur.

ENTER:
Paul Kenny
Chief Clerk
Decision Date: December 06, 2018

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Lenox Hill Radiology & MIA, P.C. v. Global Liberty Ins. Co. of N.Y., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lenox-hill-radiology-mia-pc-v-global-liberty-ins-co-of-ny-nyappterm-2018.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack