Pavlova v. Travelers Ins. Co.

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Pavlova v. Travelers Ins. Co.

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedJune 1, 2018

Docket2018 NYSlipOp 50847(U)

StatusPublished

This text of Pavlova v. Travelers Ins. Co. (Pavlova v. Travelers 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

Pavlova v. Travelers Ins. Co., (N.Y. Ct. App. 2018).

Pincite

Opinion

Ksenia Pavlova, D.O., as Assignee of Lalputan, Sheldon, Appellant,

against

Travelers Insurance Company, Respondent.

The Rybak Firm, PLLC (Damin J. Toell of counsel), for appellant. Law Office of Aloy O. Ibuzor (Tricia Prettypaul of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Harriet L. Thompson, J.), entered November 20, 2015. The order granted defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and denied plaintiff's cross motion for summary judgment.

ORDERED that the order is modified by providing that defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is denied; as so modified, the order is affirmed, without 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 on the ground that the action was premature because plaintiff had failed to provide requested verification, and denied plaintiff's cross motion for summary judgment.

Contrary to plaintiff's contentions, defendant's proof was sufficient to demonstrate prima facie that it had properly mailed the verification requests at issue (see St. Vincent's Hosp. of Richmond v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 50 AD3d 1123 [2008]) and that it had not received the 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]). However, as plaintiff further argues, the affidavit submitted by plaintiff in support of its cross motion was sufficient to give rise to a presumption that the requested verification had been mailed to, and received by, defendant (see [*2]St. Vincent's Hosp. of Richmond, 50 AD3d 1123). In light of the foregoing, there is a triable issue of fact as to whether the action is premature (see Compas Med., P.C. v Praetorian Ins. Co., 49 Misc 3d 152[A], 2015 NY Slip Op 51776[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2015]).

Accordingly, the order is modified by providing that defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is denied.

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

ENTER:
Paul Kenny
Chief Clerk
Decision Date: June 01, 2018

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

Ksenia Pavlova, D.O., as Assignee of Lalputan, Sheldon, Appellant,

against

Travelers Insurance Company, Respondent.

The Rybak Firm, PLLC (Damin J. Toell of counsel), for appellant. Law Office of Aloy O. Ibuzor (Tricia Prettypaul of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Harriet L. Thompson, J.), entered November 20, 2015. The order granted defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and denied plaintiff's cross motion for summary judgment.

ORDERED that the order is modified by providing that defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is denied; as so modified, the order is affirmed, without 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 on the ground that the action was premature because plaintiff had failed to provide requested verification, and denied plaintiff's cross motion for summary judgment.

Contrary to plaintiff's contentions, defendant's proof was sufficient to demonstrate prima facie that it had properly mailed the verification requests at issue (see St. Vincent's Hosp. of Richmond v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 50 AD3d 1123 [2008]) and that it had not received the 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]). However, as plaintiff further argues, the affidavit submitted by plaintiff in support of its cross motion was sufficient to give rise to a presumption that the requested verification had been mailed to, and received by, defendant (see [*2]St. Vincent's Hosp. of Richmond, 50 AD3d 1123). In light of the foregoing, there is a triable issue of fact as to whether the action is premature (see Compas Med., P.C. v Praetorian Ins. Co., 49 Misc 3d 152[A], 2015 NY Slip Op 51776[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2015]).

Accordingly, the order is modified by providing that defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is denied.

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

ENTER:
Paul Kenny
Chief Clerk
Decision Date: June 01, 2018

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Pavlova v. Travelers Ins. Co., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pavlova-v-travelers-ins-co-nyappterm-2018.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack