Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Multi-Specialty Pain Management Pc A/A/O Jurie Burke v. New York Central Mutual Fire Insurance Company

New York Supreme and/or Appellate Courts Appellate Term, First Department


September 14, 2011

MULTI-SPECIALTY PAIN MANAGEMENT PC A/A/O JURIE BURKE,
PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT,
v.
NEW YORK CENTRAL MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

Defendant appeals from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Bronx County (Raul Cruz, J.), entered November 10, 2010, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Per curiam.

Multi-Specialty Pain Mgt. PC v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co.

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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 September 14, 2011

APPELLATE TERM OF THE SUPREME COURT, FIRST DEPARTMENT

PRESENT: Torres, J.P., Shulman, Hunter, Jr., JJ

Order (Raul Cruz, J.), entered November 10, 2010, reversed, with $10 costs, motion granted and complaint dismissed. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.

In this action to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, defendant's submissions established prima facie that it properly mailed initial and follow-up notices of independent medical examinations (IMEs) to the assignor and her attorney, and that the assignor failed to appear (see Unitrin Advantage Ins. Co. v Bayshore Physical Therapy, PLLC, 82 AD3d 559, 560 [2011]; Stephen Fogel Psychological, P.C. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 35 AD3d 720, 721 [2006]). In opposition, plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue regarding the reasonableness of the IME requests or the assignor's failure to attend (see Unitrin Advantage Ins. Co., 82 AD3d at 560; Inwood Hill Med., P.C. v General Assur. Co., 10 Misc 3d 18, 20 [2005]).

We have examined plaintiff's remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

Decision Date: September 14, 2011

20110914

© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.