Solution Bridge, Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Solution Bridge, Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedNovember 16, 2018

Docket2018 NYSlipOp 51648(U)

StatusPublished

This text of Solution Bridge, Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (Solution Bridge, Inc. 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

Solution Bridge, Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., (N.Y. Ct. App. 2018).

Pincite

Opinion

Solution Bridge, Inc., as Assignee of Torres, Lynette, Appellant,

against

State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co., Respondent.

The Rybak Firm, PLLC (Damin J. Toell of counsel), for appellant. De Martini & Yi, LLP (Bryan Visnius of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Steven Z. Mostofsky, J.), entered April 4, 2016. 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, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Civil Court which granted defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint based upon plaintiff's failure to provide requested verification within 120 days of the initial verification request (see 11 NYCRR 65-3.5 [o]).

Contrary to plaintiff's contentions, defendant's proof was sufficient to demonstrate prima facie that it had timely mailed initial and follow-up verification requests (see St. Vincent's Hosp. of Richmond v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 50 AD3d 1123 [2008]); that it had not received the requested verification; and that it had timely denied the claim on that ground. However, as plaintiff further argues, the affidavit submitted by plaintiff in opposition to defendant's motion was sufficient to give rise to a presumption that the requested verification had been mailed to, and received by, defendant (see id.). In light of the foregoing, there is a triable issue of fact as to whether plaintiff provided the requested verification.

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

PESCE, P.J., ALIOTTA and ELLIOT, JJ., concur.

ENTER:
Paul Kenny
Chief Clerk
Decision Date: November 16, 2018

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

Solution Bridge, Inc., as Assignee of Torres, Lynette, Appellant,

against

State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co., Respondent.

The Rybak Firm, PLLC (Damin J. Toell of counsel), for appellant. De Martini & Yi, LLP (Bryan Visnius of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Steven Z. Mostofsky, J.), entered April 4, 2016. 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, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Civil Court which granted defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint based upon plaintiff's failure to provide requested verification within 120 days of the initial verification request (see 11 NYCRR 65-3.5 [o]).

Contrary to plaintiff's contentions, defendant's proof was sufficient to demonstrate prima facie that it had timely mailed initial and follow-up verification requests (see St. Vincent's Hosp. of Richmond v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 50 AD3d 1123 [2008]); that it had not received the requested verification; and that it had timely denied the claim on that ground. However, as plaintiff further argues, the affidavit submitted by plaintiff in opposition to defendant's motion was sufficient to give rise to a presumption that the requested verification had been mailed to, and received by, defendant (see id.). In light of the foregoing, there is a triable issue of fact as to whether plaintiff provided the requested verification.

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

PESCE, P.J., ALIOTTA and ELLIOT, JJ., concur.

ENTER:
Paul Kenny
Chief Clerk
Decision Date: November 16, 2018

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Solution Bridge, Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/solution-bridge-inc-v-state-farm-mut-auto-ins-co-nyappterm-2018.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack