Professional Health Imaging, P.C. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Professional Health Imaging, P.C. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedFebruary 8, 2017

Docket2017 NYSlipOp 50199(U)

StatusPublished

This text of Professional Health Imaging, P.C. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (Professional Health Imaging, P.C. 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

Professional Health Imaging, P.C. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

Professional Health Imaging, P.C., as Assignee of Crystal Perez, Respondent,

against

State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co., Appellant.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Robin Kelly Sheares, J.), entered October 27, 2014. The order denied defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

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

In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that plaintiff had failed to appear for duly scheduled examinations under oath (EUOs). Plaintiff opposed the motion. By order entered October 27, 2014, the Civil Court denied defendant's motion on the ground that an issue of fact exists as to whether plaintiff had appeared for the EUOs.

Defendant's moving papers established that the EUO scheduling letters had been timely mailed (see St. Vincent's Hosp. of Richmond v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 50 AD3d 1123 [2008]) and that plaintiff had failed to appear for the duly scheduled EUOs (see Stephen Fogel Psychological, P.C. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 35 AD3d 720 [2006]). Thus, defendant demonstrated that plaintiff had failed to comply with a condition precedent to coverage (id. at 722). As defendant had timely denied (see St. Vincent's Hosp. of Richmond, 50 AD3d 1123) the claims on that ground, and plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact in opposition to defendant's motion, defendant was entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Accordingly, the order is reversed and defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted.

Weston, J.P., Aliotta and Elliot, JJ., concur.

Decision Date: February 08, 2017

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

Professional Health Imaging, P.C., as Assignee of Crystal Perez, Respondent,

against

State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co., Appellant.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Robin Kelly Sheares, J.), entered October 27, 2014. The order denied defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

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

In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that plaintiff had failed to appear for duly scheduled examinations under oath (EUOs). Plaintiff opposed the motion. By order entered October 27, 2014, the Civil Court denied defendant's motion on the ground that an issue of fact exists as to whether plaintiff had appeared for the EUOs.

Defendant's moving papers established that the EUO scheduling letters had been timely mailed (see St. Vincent's Hosp. of Richmond v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 50 AD3d 1123 [2008]) and that plaintiff had failed to appear for the duly scheduled EUOs (see Stephen Fogel Psychological, P.C. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 35 AD3d 720 [2006]). Thus, defendant demonstrated that plaintiff had failed to comply with a condition precedent to coverage (id. at 722). As defendant had timely denied (see St. Vincent's Hosp. of Richmond, 50 AD3d 1123) the claims on that ground, and plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact in opposition to defendant's motion, defendant was entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Accordingly, the order is reversed and defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted.

Weston, J.P., Aliotta and Elliot, JJ., concur.

Decision Date: February 08, 2017

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Professional Health Imaging, P.C. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/professional-health-imaging-pc-v-state-farm-mut-auto-ins-co-nyappterm-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack