Omphil Care, Inc. v. GEICO Ins. Co.

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Omphil Care, Inc. v. GEICO Ins. Co.

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedDecember 6, 2019

Docket2019 NYSlipOp 51979(U)

StatusPublished

This text of Omphil Care, Inc. v. GEICO Ins. Co. (Omphil Care, Inc. v. GEICO 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

Omphil Care, Inc. v. GEICO Ins. Co., (N.Y. Ct. App. 2019).

Pincite

Opinion

Omphil Care, Inc., as Assignee of Rivera, Eugenio, Respondent,

against

GEICO Ins. Co., Appellant.

Rivkin Radler, LLP (Stuart M. Bodoff of counsel), for appellant. The Rybak Firm, PLLC (Damin J. Toell of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Rosemarie Montalbano, J.), entered June 18, 2018. The order, insofar as appealed from and as limited by the brief, denied defendant's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

ORDERED that the order, insofar as appealed from, is reversed, with $30 costs, and defendant's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted.

In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, plaintiff moved for summary judgment, and defendant cross-moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that plaintiff had failed to appear for duly scheduled examinations under oath (EUOs). As limited by the brief, defendant appeals from so much of an order of the Civil Court entered June 18, 2018 as denied defendant's cross motion for summary judgment.

In support of its cross motion, defendant submitted an affirmation from the attorney who was to perform the EUOs, which affirmation was sufficient to establish that plaintiff had failed to appear for the scheduled EUOs (see Stephen Fogel Psychological, P.C. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 35 AD3d 720 [2006]). Moreover, a review of the record establishes that the Civil Court [*2]correctly determined that defendant had established the timely and proper mailing of the EUO scheduling letters and the denial of claim forms (see St. Vincent's Hosp. of Richmond v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 50 AD3d 1123 [2008]).

Accordingly, the order, insofar as appealed from, is reversed and defendant's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted.

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

ENTER:
Paul Kenny
Chief Clerk
Decision Date: December 6, 2019

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

Omphil Care, Inc., as Assignee of Rivera, Eugenio, Respondent,

against

GEICO Ins. Co., Appellant.

Rivkin Radler, LLP (Stuart M. Bodoff of counsel), for appellant. The Rybak Firm, PLLC (Damin J. Toell of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Rosemarie Montalbano, J.), entered June 18, 2018. The order, insofar as appealed from and as limited by the brief, denied defendant's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

ORDERED that the order, insofar as appealed from, is reversed, with $30 costs, and defendant's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted.

In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, plaintiff moved for summary judgment, and defendant cross-moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that plaintiff had failed to appear for duly scheduled examinations under oath (EUOs). As limited by the brief, defendant appeals from so much of an order of the Civil Court entered June 18, 2018 as denied defendant's cross motion for summary judgment.

In support of its cross motion, defendant submitted an affirmation from the attorney who was to perform the EUOs, which affirmation was sufficient to establish that plaintiff had failed to appear for the scheduled EUOs (see Stephen Fogel Psychological, P.C. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 35 AD3d 720 [2006]). Moreover, a review of the record establishes that the Civil Court [*2]correctly determined that defendant had established the timely and proper mailing of the EUO scheduling letters and the denial of claim forms (see St. Vincent's Hosp. of Richmond v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 50 AD3d 1123 [2008]).

Accordingly, the order, insofar as appealed from, is reversed and defendant's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted.

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

ENTER:
Paul Kenny
Chief Clerk
Decision Date: December 6, 2019

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Omphil Care, Inc. v. GEICO Ins. Co., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/omphil-care-inc-v-geico-ins-co-nyappterm-2019.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack