Tam Med. Supply Corp. v. Tri State Consumers Ins. Co.

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Tam Med. Supply Corp. v. Tri State Consumers Ins. Co.

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedSeptember 19, 2016

Docket2016 NYSlipOp 51350(U)

StatusPublished

This text of Tam Med. Supply Corp. v. Tri State Consumers Ins. Co. (Tam Med. Supply Corp. v. Tri State Consumers 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. Tri State Consumers Ins. Co., (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

TAM Medical Supply Corp., as Assignee of YNILCY BASCUMBE, Appellant,

against

Tri State Consumers Ins. Co., Respondent.

Appeals from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Larry Love, J.), entered October 1, 2013. 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.

Contrary to plaintiff's contention, the affirmation defendant submitted from the doctor who was to perform an independent medical examination (IME) of plaintiff's assignor was sufficient to establish that plaintiff's assignor had failed to appear for the scheduled IMEs (see Stephen Fogel Psychological, P.C. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 35 AD3d 720 [2006]; Quality Psychological Servs., P.C. v Interboro Mut. Indem. Ins. Co., 36 Misc 3d 146[A], 2012 NY Slip Op 51628[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2012]). In light of the foregoing, we need not reach plaintiff's contentions with respect to its motion for summary judgment or an alternate defense asserted by defendant.

Accordingly, the order is affirmed.

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

Decision Date: September 19, 2016

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

TAM Medical Supply Corp., as Assignee of YNILCY BASCUMBE, Appellant,

against

Tri State Consumers Ins. Co., Respondent.

Appeals from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Larry Love, J.), entered October 1, 2013. 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.

Contrary to plaintiff's contention, the affirmation defendant submitted from the doctor who was to perform an independent medical examination (IME) of plaintiff's assignor was sufficient to establish that plaintiff's assignor had failed to appear for the scheduled IMEs (see Stephen Fogel Psychological, P.C. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 35 AD3d 720 [2006]; Quality Psychological Servs., P.C. v Interboro Mut. Indem. Ins. Co., 36 Misc 3d 146[A], 2012 NY Slip Op 51628[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2012]). In light of the foregoing, we need not reach plaintiff's contentions with respect to its motion for summary judgment or an alternate defense asserted by defendant.

Accordingly, the order is affirmed.

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

Decision Date: September 19, 2016

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Tam Med. Supply Corp. v. Tri State Consumers Ins. Co., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tam-med-supply-corp-v-tri-state-consumers-ins-co-nyappterm-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack