T & S Med. Supply Corp. v. Ameriprise Auto & Home
This text of T & S Med. Supply Corp. v. Ameriprise Auto & Home (T & S Med. Supply Corp. v. Ameriprise Auto & Home) 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.
Opinion
against
Ameriprise Auto & Home, Respondent.
The Rybak Firm, PLLC (Damin J. Toell, Esq.), for appellant. Bruno, Gerbino & Soriano, LLP (Mitchell L. Kaufman, Esq.), for respondent.
Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Jodi Orlow, J.), entered June 25, 2014. The order denied plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and granted defendant's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with $25 costs.
In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Civil Court which denied plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, and 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 examinations under oath (EUOs).
Contrary to plaintiff's sole contention on appeal with respect to defendant's cross motion, the affirmation submitted by defendant was sufficient to establish plaintiff's assignor's failure to appear for the EUOs (see Stephen Fogel Psychological, P.C. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 35 AD3d 720 [2006]).
Accordingly, the order is affirmed.
PESCE, P.J., ALIOTTA and SOLOMON, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Paul Kenny
Chief Clerk
Decision Date: September 15, 2017
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
T & S Med. Supply Corp. v. Ameriprise Auto & Home, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/t-s-med-supply-corp-v-ameriprise-auto-home-nyappterm-2017.