Tam Med. Supply Corp. v. Hereford Ins. Co.

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Tam Med. Supply Corp. v. Hereford Ins. Co.

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedSeptember 15, 2017

Docket2017 NYSlipOp 51196(U)

StatusPublished

This text of Tam Med. Supply Corp. v. Hereford Ins. Co. (Tam Med. Supply Corp. v. Hereford 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

Tam Med. Supply Corp. v. Hereford Ins. Co., (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

Tam Medical Supply Corp., as Assignee of Green, Jabron, Respondent,

against

Hereford Insurance Co., Appellant.

Law Office of Lawrence R. Miles (Lawrence R. Miles, Esq.), for appellant. The Rybak Firm, PLLC (Joseph D. DePalma, Esq.), for respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Pamela L. Fisher, J.), entered June 10, 2014. The order, insofar as appealed from, denied defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

ORDERED that the order, insofar as appealed from, is affirmed, with $25 costs.

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 10, 2014, the Civil Court denied defendant's motion, but held, in effect pursuant to CPLR 3212 (g), that the only issue for trial was whether the verification remained outstanding. Defendant appeals from so much of the order as denied its motion.

While defendant made a prima facie showing that it had not received the requested verification, 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 St. Vincent's Hosp. of Richmond v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 50 AD3d 1123 [2008]). As a triable issue of fact exists as to whether the requested verification remained outstanding, the Civil Court properly denied defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as premature (see Compas Med., P.C. v Praetorian Ins. Co., 49 Misc 3d 152[A], 2015 NY Slip Op 51776[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2015]).

Accordingly, the order, insofar as appealed from, 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

Tam Medical Supply Corp., as Assignee of Green, Jabron, Respondent,

against

Hereford Insurance Co., Appellant.

Law Office of Lawrence R. Miles (Lawrence R. Miles, Esq.), for appellant. The Rybak Firm, PLLC (Joseph D. DePalma, Esq.), for respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Pamela L. Fisher, J.), entered June 10, 2014. The order, insofar as appealed from, denied defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

ORDERED that the order, insofar as appealed from, is affirmed, with $25 costs.

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 10, 2014, the Civil Court denied defendant's motion, but held, in effect pursuant to CPLR 3212 (g), that the only issue for trial was whether the verification remained outstanding. Defendant appeals from so much of the order as denied its motion.

While defendant made a prima facie showing that it had not received the requested verification, 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 St. Vincent's Hosp. of Richmond v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 50 AD3d 1123 [2008]). As a triable issue of fact exists as to whether the requested verification remained outstanding, the Civil Court properly denied defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as premature (see Compas Med., P.C. v Praetorian Ins. Co., 49 Misc 3d 152[A], 2015 NY Slip Op 51776[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2015]).

Accordingly, the order, insofar as appealed from, is affirmed.

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

ENTER:
Paul Kenny
Chief Clerk
Decision Date: September 15, 2017

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Tam Med. Supply Corp. v. Hereford Ins. Co., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tam-med-supply-corp-v-hereford-ins-co-nyappterm-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack