Renelique v. Travelers Ins. Co.

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Renelique v. Travelers Ins. Co.

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedJune 6, 2016

Docket2016 NYSlipOp 50911(U)

StatusPublished

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

Renelique v. Travelers Ins. Co., (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

Pierre Jean Jacques Renelique, as Assignee of ALLEN HAYNES, Appellant,

against

Travelers Insurance Company, Respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (William A. Viscovich, J.), entered June 27, 2013. The order granted 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 denied.

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 the action was premature because plaintiff had failed to provide requested verification. By order entered June 27, 2013, the Civil Court granted defendant's motion.

In support of its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, defendant established that it had timely mailed its verification request and follow-up verification request (see St. Vincent's Hosp. of Richmond v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 50 AD3d 1123 [2008]). Defendant also demonstrated prima facie that it had not received the requested verification and, thus, that plaintiff's action is premature (see Central Suffolk Hosp. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 24 AD3d 492 [2005]). However, in opposition to the motion, plaintiff submitted an affidavit from plaintiff's owner, which affidavit was sufficient to give rise to a presumption that the requested verification had been mailed to, and received by, defendant (see Residential Holding Corp. v Scottsdale Ins. Co., 286 AD2d 679 [2001]). In light of the foregoing, there is a triable issue of fact as to whether this action is premature (see Healing Health Prods., Inc. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 44 Misc 3d 59 [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2014]).

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

Pesce, P.J., Aliotta and Solomon, JJ., concur.

Decision Date: June 06, 2016

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

Pierre Jean Jacques Renelique, as Assignee of ALLEN HAYNES, Appellant,

against

Travelers Insurance Company, Respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (William A. Viscovich, J.), entered June 27, 2013. The order granted 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 denied.

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 the action was premature because plaintiff had failed to provide requested verification. By order entered June 27, 2013, the Civil Court granted defendant's motion.

In support of its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, defendant established that it had timely mailed its verification request and follow-up verification request (see St. Vincent's Hosp. of Richmond v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 50 AD3d 1123 [2008]). Defendant also demonstrated prima facie that it had not received the requested verification and, thus, that plaintiff's action is premature (see Central Suffolk Hosp. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 24 AD3d 492 [2005]). However, in opposition to the motion, plaintiff submitted an affidavit from plaintiff's owner, which affidavit was sufficient to give rise to a presumption that the requested verification had been mailed to, and received by, defendant (see Residential Holding Corp. v Scottsdale Ins. Co., 286 AD2d 679 [2001]). In light of the foregoing, there is a triable issue of fact as to whether this action is premature (see Healing Health Prods., Inc. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 44 Misc 3d 59 [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2014]).

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

Pesce, P.J., Aliotta and Solomon, JJ., concur.

Decision Date: June 06, 2016

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Renelique v. Travelers Ins. Co., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/renelique-v-travelers-ins-co-nyappterm-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack