SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK APPELLATE TERM: 2nd, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
March 2, 2011
TRI-MOUNT ACUPUNCTURE, P.C. AS ASSIGNEE OF JERRY SAVAGE,
NY CENTRAL MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY,
Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Diane A. Lebedeff, J.), entered October 29, 2009, deemed from a judgment of the same court entered November 16, 2009 (see CPLR 5501 [c]).
Tri-Mount Acupuncture, P.C. v N.Y. Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co.
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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 March 2, 2011
PRESENT: PESCE, P.J., GOLIA and STEINHARDT, JJ
The judgment, entered pursuant to the October 29, 2009 order granting plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and denying defendant's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $4,335.
ORDERED that the judgment is reversed, without costs, the order entered October 29, 2009 is vacated, plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is denied and defendant's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted.
In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, plaintiff moved for summary judgment, and defendant cross-moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that plaintiff's assignor had failed to appear for scheduled independent medical examinations (IMEs). The Civil Court granted plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and denied defendant's cross motion for summary judgment. This appeal by defendant ensued. A judgment was subsequently entered, from which the appeal is deemed to be taken (see CPLR 5501 [c]).
In support of its cross motion for summary judgment, defendant
submitted an affidavit of an employee of Crossland Medical Services,
P.C. (Crossland), the entity which scheduled the IMEs involved herein
on behalf of defendant. The affidavit established that the IME
scheduling letters had been mailed in accordance with Crossland's
standard office practices and procedures (see St. Vincent's Hosp. of
Richmond v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 50 AD3d 1123 ; Delta
Diagnostic Radiology, P.C. v Chubb Group of Ins., 17 Misc 3d 16 [App
Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2007]). In addition, an affidavit executed by defendant's
litigation examiner demonstrated that the denial of claim forms, which had denied the claims
based upon the failure of plaintiff's assignor to appear for the IMEs, had been timely mailed
pursuant to defendant's standard office practices and procedures (see St. Vincent's Hosp.
of Richmond, 50 AD3d 1123; Delta Diagnostic Radiology, P.C., 17 Misc 3d 16). Defendant
also submitted affirmations from its examining physicians and
affidavits from its examining chiropractors, who stated that
plaintiff's assignor had failed to appear for the scheduled IMEs. As a
result, defendant established its prima facie entitlement to judgment
as a matter of law (see Stephen Fogel Psychological, P.C. v
Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 35 AD3d 720 ). Inasmuch as plaintiff
submitted only a reply affirmation from its counsel, which affirmation
failed to raise a triable issue of fact, defendant's cross motion for
summary judgment dismissing the complaint should have been granted. In
light of the foregoing, we need not reach the parties' remaining
Accordingly, the judgment is reversed, the order entered October 29, 2009 is vacated, plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is denied and defendant's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted.
Pesce, P.J., Golia and Steinhardt, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: March 02, 2011
© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.