Orthoplus Prods., Inc. v. Global Liberty Ins. Co. of N.Y.

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Orthoplus Prods., Inc. v. Global Liberty Ins. Co. of N.Y.

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedJune 19, 2019

Docket2019 NYSlipOp 51003(U)

StatusPublished

This text of Orthoplus Prods., Inc. v. Global Liberty Ins. Co. of N.Y. (Orthoplus Prods., Inc. 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

Orthoplus Prods., Inc. v. Global Liberty Ins. Co. of N.Y., (N.Y. Ct. App. 2019).

Pincite

Opinion

Orthoplus Products, Inc., a/a/o Atiana Colston, Plaintiff-Respondent,

against

Global Liberty Insurance Company of New York, Defendant-Appellant.

Defendant appeals from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County (Carolyn Walker-Diallo, J.), dated July 20, 2018, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Per Curiam.

Order (Carolyn Walker-Diallo, J.), dated July 20, 2018, reversed, with $10 costs, motion granted and complaint dismissed. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.

Defendant-insurer established its prima facie entitlement to summary judgment dismissing the underlying first-party no-fault claims as premature. Even accepting plaintiff's assertion that it submitted certain verification documents to defendant, the record establishes that plaintiff did not fully respond to defendant's requests for additional verification, which were properly mailed to plaintiff's attorney as authorized by counsel's prior correspondence to defendant (see St. Vincent's Hosp. of Richmond v American Tr. Ins. Co., 299 AD2d 338 [2002]; GNK Med. Supply, Inc. v Tri-State Consumer Ins. Co., 37 Misc 3d 138[A], 2012 NY Slip Op 52195[U] [App Term, 1st Dept 2012]). Since verification remained outstanding, the then-applicable thirty-day period to pay or deny the claims did not begin to run, the claims were not overdue, and plaintiff's action is premature (see St. Vincent Med. Care, P.C. v Country Wide Ins. Co., 80 AD3d 599, 600 [2011]; Westchester County Med. Ctr. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 262 AD2d 553 [1999]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

I concur I concur I concur
Decision Date: June 19, 2019

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

Orthoplus Products, Inc., a/a/o Atiana Colston, Plaintiff-Respondent,

against

Global Liberty Insurance Company of New York, Defendant-Appellant.

Defendant appeals from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County (Carolyn Walker-Diallo, J.), dated July 20, 2018, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Per Curiam.

Order (Carolyn Walker-Diallo, J.), dated July 20, 2018, reversed, with $10 costs, motion granted and complaint dismissed. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.

Defendant-insurer established its prima facie entitlement to summary judgment dismissing the underlying first-party no-fault claims as premature. Even accepting plaintiff's assertion that it submitted certain verification documents to defendant, the record establishes that plaintiff did not fully respond to defendant's requests for additional verification, which were properly mailed to plaintiff's attorney as authorized by counsel's prior correspondence to defendant (see St. Vincent's Hosp. of Richmond v American Tr. Ins. Co., 299 AD2d 338 [2002]; GNK Med. Supply, Inc. v Tri-State Consumer Ins. Co., 37 Misc 3d 138[A], 2012 NY Slip Op 52195[U] [App Term, 1st Dept 2012]). Since verification remained outstanding, the then-applicable thirty-day period to pay or deny the claims did not begin to run, the claims were not overdue, and plaintiff's action is premature (see St. Vincent Med. Care, P.C. v Country Wide Ins. Co., 80 AD3d 599, 600 [2011]; Westchester County Med. Ctr. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 262 AD2d 553 [1999]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

I concur I concur I concur
Decision Date: June 19, 2019

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Orthoplus Prods., Inc. v. Global Liberty Ins. Co. of N.Y., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/orthoplus-prods-inc-v-global-liberty-ins-co-of-ny-nyappterm-2019.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack