Santiago v. Prudential Insurance

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Santiago v. Prudential Insurance

292 A.D.2d 364, 738 N.Y.S.2d 597, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2251

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedMarch 4, 2002

StatusPublished

This text of 292 A.D.2d 364 (Santiago v. Prudential Insurance) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Santiago v. Prudential Insurance, 292 A.D.2d 364, 738 N.Y.S.2d 597, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2251 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to recover no-fault insurance benefits, the plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hall, J.), dated December 19, 2000, as denied her cross motion for summary judgment on her claim for no-fault insurance benefits, including medical expenses and loss of earnings.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The plaintiff contends that the respondent violated Insurance Law § 5106 by failing to deny or pay no-fault benefits within 30 days of the receipt of her application. However, Insurance Law § 5106 (a) states that benefits are only “overdue if not paid within thirty days after the claimant supplies proof of the fact and amount of loss sustained” (see, 11 NYCRR 65.15 [g]). There are issues of fact as to if and when the plaintiff submitted sufficient verification of her claims. Smith, J.P., Goldstein, McGinity and H. Miller, JJ., concur.

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

In an action, inter alia, to recover no-fault insurance benefits, the plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hall, J.), dated December 19, 2000, as denied her cross motion for summary judgment on her claim for no-fault insurance benefits, including medical expenses and loss of earnings.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The plaintiff contends that the respondent violated Insurance Law § 5106 by failing to deny or pay no-fault benefits within 30 days of the receipt of her application. However, Insurance Law § 5106 (a) states that benefits are only “overdue if not paid within thirty days after the claimant supplies proof of the fact and amount of loss sustained” (see, 11 NYCRR 65.15 [g]). There are issues of fact as to if and when the plaintiff submitted sufficient verification of her claims. Smith, J.P., Goldstein, McGinity and H. Miller, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

292 A.D.2d 364, 738 N.Y.S.2d 597, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2251, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/santiago-v-prudential-insurance-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack