TAM Med. Supply Corp. v. National Liab. & Fire Ins. Co.

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

TAM Med. Supply Corp. v. National Liab. & Fire Ins. Co.

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York·Decided September 27, 2016·No. 2016 NYSlipOp 51423(U)·Published

Opinion

TAM Medical Supply Corp., as Assignee of JOEL JACQUEZ, Appellant,

against

National Liability & Fire Insurance Company, Respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Ulysses Bernard Leverett, J.), entered March 20, 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 modified by providing that defendant's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is denied; as so modified, the order is affirmed, without 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.

Plaintiff correctly argues that the affidavit submitted by defendant in support of its cross motion did not sufficiently set forth a standard office practice or procedure that would ensure that its letters scheduling plaintiff's assignor for independent medical examinations had been properly mailed (see St. Vincent's Hosp. of Richmond v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 50 AD3d 1123 [2008]). Thus, defendant did not demonstrate its entitlement to summary judgment.

However, contrary to plaintiff's contention, plaintiff failed to demonstrate its prima facie entitlement to summary judgment, as the affidavit plaintiff submitted in support of its motion failed to establish that the claim at issue had not been timely denied (see Viviane Etienne Med. Care, P.C. v Country-Wide Ins. Co., 25 NY3d 498 [2015]), or that defendant had issued a timely denial of claim that was conclusory, vague or without merit as a matter of law (see Westchester Med. Ctr. v Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 78 AD3d 1168 [2010]; Ave T MPC Corp. v Auto One Ins. Co., 32 Misc 3d 128[A], 2011 NY Slip Op 51292[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2011]).

Accordingly, the order is modified by providing that defendant's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is denied.

Pesce, P.J., Aliotta and Solomon, JJ.

Decision Date: September 27, 2016

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

TAM Medical Supply Corp., as Assignee of JOEL JACQUEZ, Appellant,

against

National Liability & Fire Insurance Company, Respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Ulysses Bernard Leverett, J.), entered March 20, 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 modified by providing that defendant's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is denied; as so modified, the order is affirmed, without 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.

Plaintiff correctly argues that the affidavit submitted by defendant in support of its cross motion did not sufficiently set forth a standard office practice or procedure that would ensure that its letters scheduling plaintiff's assignor for independent medical examinations had been properly mailed (see St. Vincent's Hosp. of Richmond v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 50 AD3d 1123 [2008]). Thus, defendant did not demonstrate its entitlement to summary judgment.

However, contrary to plaintiff's contention, plaintiff failed to demonstrate its prima facie entitlement to summary judgment, as the affidavit plaintiff submitted in support of its motion failed to establish that the claim at issue had not been timely denied (see Viviane Etienne Med. Care, P.C. v Country-Wide Ins. Co., 25 NY3d 498 [2015]), or that defendant had issued a timely denial of claim that was conclusory, vague or without merit as a matter of law (see Westchester Med. Ctr. v Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 78 AD3d 1168 [2010]; Ave T MPC Corp. v Auto One Ins. Co., 32 Misc 3d 128[A], 2011 NY Slip Op 51292[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2011]).

Accordingly, the order is modified by providing that defendant's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is denied.

Pesce, P.J., Aliotta and Solomon, JJ.

Decision Date: September 27, 2016

TAM Med. Supply Corp. v. National Liab. & Fire Ins. Co., (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

TAM Med. Supply Corp. v. National Liab. & Fire Ins. Co. (TAM Med. Supply Corp. v. National Liab. & Fire Ins. Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related