Veraso Med. Supply Corp. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.

75 Misc. 3d 139(A), 2022 NY Slip Op 50583(U)
CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York
DecidedJune 10, 2022
Docket2020-454 K C
StatusUnpublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 75 Misc. 3d 139(A) (Veraso Med. Supply Corp. 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
Veraso Med. Supply Corp. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 75 Misc. 3d 139(A), 2022 NY Slip Op 50583(U) (N.Y. Ct. App. 2022).

Opinion

Veraso Med. Supply Corp. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (2022 NY Slip Op 50583(U)) [*1]

Veraso Med. Supply Corp. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.
2022 NY Slip Op 50583(U) [75 Misc 3d 139(A)]
Decided on June 10, 2022
Appellate Term, Second Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.


Decided on June 10, 2022
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 2d, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS

PRESENT: : THOMAS P. ALIOTTA, P.J., WAVNY TOUSSAINT, DONNA-MARIE E. GOLIA, JJ
2020-454 K C

Veraso Medical Supply Corp., as Assignee of Gomez, Nelson, Appellant,

against

State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co., Respondent.


The Rybak Firm, PLLC (Damin J. Toell of counsel), for appellant. Rivkin Radler, LLP (Stuart M. Bodoff and Cheryl F. Korman of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Carolyn Walker-Diallo, J.), entered March 21, 2019. The order granted defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and denied plaintiff's cross motion for summary judgment.

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 which granted defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and denied plaintiff's cross motion for summary judgment.

Contrary to plaintiff's sole contention on appeal with respect to defendant's motion, the affidavit submitted by plaintiff in opposition to defendant's motion was insufficient to demonstrate the existence of an issue of fact (see CPM Med Supply, Inc. v State Farm Fire & Cas. Ins. Co., 63 Misc 3d 140[A], 2019 NY Slip Op 50576[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2019]; D & R Med. Supply v American Tr. Ins. Co., 32 Misc 3d 144[A], 2011 NY Slip Op 51727[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2011]).

Accordingly, the order is affirmed.

ALIOTTA, P.J., TOUSSAINT and GOLIA, JJ., concur.


ENTER:
Paul Kenny
Chief Clerk
Decision Date: June 10, 2022

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

Related

Veraso Med. Supply Corp. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.
75 Misc. 3d 139(A) (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 2022)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
75 Misc. 3d 139(A), 2022 NY Slip Op 50583(U), Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/veraso-med-supply-corp-v-state-farm-mut-auto-ins-co-nyappterm-2022.