Preferred Ortho Prods., Inc. v. Hereford Ins. Co.

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Preferred Ortho Prods., Inc. v. Hereford Ins. Co.

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedMay 3, 2019

Docket2019 NYSlipOp 50688(U)

StatusPublished

This text of Preferred Ortho Prods., Inc. v. Hereford Ins. Co. (Preferred Ortho Prods., Inc. v. Hereford 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

Preferred Ortho Prods., Inc. v. Hereford Ins. Co., (N.Y. Ct. App. 2019).

Pincite

Opinion

Preferred Ortho Products, Inc., as Assignee of Vasquez, Luis, Appellant,

against

Hereford Insurance Co., Respondent.

The Rybak Firm, PLLC (Damin J. Toell of counsel), for appellant. Law Offices of Rubin & Nazarian (Tasnim Hassanali of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Mojgan Cohanim Lancman, J.), entered November 9, 2016. The order denied plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and granted defendant's cross 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 denied plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, and granted defendant's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that plaintiff's assignor had failed to appear for duly scheduled independent medical examinations (IMEs).

Contrary to plaintiff's arguments, defendant's proof sufficiently established the proper mailing of the IME scheduling letters (see St. Vincent's Hosp. of Richmond v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 50 AD3d 1123 [2008]) and that plaintiff's assignor had failed to appear for the scheduled IMEs (see Stephen Fogel Psychological, P.C. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 35 AD3d 720 [2006]).

Accordingly, the order is affirmed.

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

ENTER:
Paul Kenny
Chief Clerk
Decision Date: May 03, 2019

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