Quest Supply, Inc. v. Praetorian Ins. Co.

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Quest Supply, Inc. v. Praetorian Ins. Co.

71 Misc. 3d 137(A), 2021 NY Slip Op 50437(U)

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedMay 14, 2021

Docket2019-369 K C

StatusUnpublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 71 Misc. 3d 137(A) (Quest Supply, Inc. v. Praetorian 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

Quest Supply, Inc. v. Praetorian Ins. Co., 71 Misc. 3d 137(A), 2021 NY Slip Op 50437(U) (N.Y. Ct. App. 2021).

Pincite

Opinion

Quest Supply, Inc. v Praetorian Ins. Co. (2021 NY Slip Op 50437(U)) [*1]

Quest Supply, Inc. v Praetorian Ins. Co.

2021 NY Slip Op 50437(U) [71 Misc 3d 137(A)]

Decided on May 14, 2021

Appellate Term, Second Department

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on May 14, 2021

SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 2d, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS

PRESENT: : THOMAS P. ALIOTTA, P.J., WAVNY TOUSSAINT, DONNA-MARIE E. GOLIA, JJ
2019-369 K C

Quest Supply, Inc., as Assignee of Valerio Marck, Appellant,

against

Praetorian Ins. Co., Respondent.

Gary Tsirelman, P.C. (Douglas Mace of counsel), for appellant. Law Offices of Moira Doherty, P.C. (Maureen Knodel of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Odessa Kennedy, J.), entered January 15, 2019. The order, insofar as appealed from as limited by the brief, granted defendant's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

ORDERED that the order, insofar as appealed from, is affirmed, with $25 costs.

In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, plaintiff appeals, as limited by the brief, from so much of an order of the Civil Court as 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 sole contention, defendant's proof sufficiently established 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, insofar as appealed from, is affirmed.

ALIOTTA, P.J., TOUSSAINT and GOLIA, JJ., concur.

ENTER:
Paul Kenny
Chief Clerk
Decision Date: May 14, 2021

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