Right Aid Med. Supply Corp. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Right Aid Med. Supply Corp. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedAugust 23, 2019

Docket2019 NYSlipOp 51409(U)

StatusPublished

This text of Right Aid Med. Supply Corp. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (Right Aid Med. Supply Corp. 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

Right Aid Med. Supply Corp. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., (N.Y. Ct. App. 2019).

Pincite

Opinion

Right Aid Medical Supply Corp., as Assignee of Marie, Alexandre, Appellant,

against

State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co., Respondent.

The Rybak Firm, PLLC (Damin J. Toell of counsel), for appellant. Richard T. Lau & Associates (Martin Dolitsky of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal from a judgment of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Richard J. Montelione, J.), entered March 21, 2016. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, dismissed the complaint.

ORDERED that the judgment is reversed, with $30 costs, and the matter is remitted to the Civil Court for a new trial on the issue of whether the requested verification remains outstanding.

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. By order entered November 19, 2014, the Civil Court found that defendant had established that it had timely requested additional verification, and held, in effect pursuant to CPLR 3212 (g), that the only issue for trial was whether plaintiff had provided the requested verification to defendant. At a nonjury trial held on February 26, 2016, the Civil Court noted that the only issue to be determined was whether plaintiff had provided the requested verification, stated that the burden was on plaintiff, and directed plaintiff to call its first witness. Plaintiff did not call any witnesses, arguing that the burden was on defendant to first establish that it had not received the requested verification. With no testimony having been presented, the Civil Court found for defendant on the ground that plaintiff had failed to demonstrate that it had provided the requested verification. Plaintiff appeals from a judgment entered March 21, 2016, dismissing the complaint.

For the reasons stated in Island Life Chiropractic, P.C. v Travelers Ins. Co. (___ Misc 3d ___, 2019 NY Slip Op 51273[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2019]), the judgment is reversed and the matter is remitted to the Civil Court for a new trial on the issue of whether the requested verification remains outstanding.

PESCE, P.J., ALIOTTA and ELLIOT, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Paul Kenny
Chief Clerk
Decision Date: August 23, 2019

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

Right Aid Medical Supply Corp., as Assignee of Marie, Alexandre, Appellant,

against

State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co., Respondent.

The Rybak Firm, PLLC (Damin J. Toell of counsel), for appellant. Richard T. Lau & Associates (Martin Dolitsky of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal from a judgment of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Richard J. Montelione, J.), entered March 21, 2016. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, dismissed the complaint.

ORDERED that the judgment is reversed, with $30 costs, and the matter is remitted to the Civil Court for a new trial on the issue of whether the requested verification remains outstanding.

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. By order entered November 19, 2014, the Civil Court found that defendant had established that it had timely requested additional verification, and held, in effect pursuant to CPLR 3212 (g), that the only issue for trial was whether plaintiff had provided the requested verification to defendant. At a nonjury trial held on February 26, 2016, the Civil Court noted that the only issue to be determined was whether plaintiff had provided the requested verification, stated that the burden was on plaintiff, and directed plaintiff to call its first witness. Plaintiff did not call any witnesses, arguing that the burden was on defendant to first establish that it had not received the requested verification. With no testimony having been presented, the Civil Court found for defendant on the ground that plaintiff had failed to demonstrate that it had provided the requested verification. Plaintiff appeals from a judgment entered March 21, 2016, dismissing the complaint.

For the reasons stated in Island Life Chiropractic, P.C. v Travelers Ins. Co. (___ Misc 3d ___, 2019 NY Slip Op 51273[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2019]), the judgment is reversed and the matter is remitted to the Civil Court for a new trial on the issue of whether the requested verification remains outstanding.

PESCE, P.J., ALIOTTA and ELLIOT, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Paul Kenny
Chief Clerk
Decision Date: August 23, 2019

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Right Aid Med. Supply Corp. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/right-aid-med-supply-corp-v-state-farm-mut-auto-ins-co-nyappterm-2019.