New Way Med. Supply Corp. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York
DecidedJuly 14, 2017
Docket2017 NYSlipOp 50925(U)
StatusPublished

This text of New Way Med. Supply Corp. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (New Way Med. Supply Corp. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. 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
New Way Med. Supply Corp. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Opinion



New Way Medical Supply Corp., as Assignee of Ladoseur, Blondine, Appellant,

against

State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co., Respondent.


The Rybak Firm, PLLC (Damin J. Toell, Esq.), for appellant. Nicolini, Paradise, Ferretti & Sabella, PLLC (Francis J. Ammendolea, Esq.), for respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Ingrid Joseph, J.), entered April 25, 2014. 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.

Contrary to plaintiff's contention, the record demonstrates that defendant had not received requested verification and, thus, that the action is premature (see Central Suffolk Hosp. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 24 AD3d 492 [2005]). In opposition to defendant's motion, plaintiff submitted an affidavit from plaintiff's owner, in which he identified the documents that had been sent by plaintiff to defendant in response to defendant's verification requests, which established that plaintiff had failed to send the requested verification. For example, plaintiff did not provide defendant with wholesale invoices for the equipment furnished by plaintiff even though these invoices were requested by defendant.

Accordingly, the order is affirmed.

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


ENTER:
Paul Kenny
Chief Clerk
Decision Date: July 14, 2017

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

Related

Central Suffolk Hospital v. New York Central Mutual Fire Insurance
24 A.D.3d 492 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
New Way Med. Supply Corp. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/new-way-med-supply-corp-v-state-farm-mut-auto-ins-co-nyappterm-2017.