SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 2d, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS New York Supreme and/or Appellate Courts
September 13, 2012
JAMAICA MEDICAL SUPPLY, INC. AS ASSIGNEE OF KERRON ALEXANDER AND DARREN NASH,
ENCOMPASS INDEMNITY COMPANY,
Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Lisa S. Ottley, J.), entered August 13, 2010, deemed from a judgment of the same court entered October 4, 2010 (see CPLR 5501 [c]).
Jamaica Med. Supply, Inc. v Encompass Indem. Co.
Decided on September 13, 2012
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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.
PRESENT: PESCE, P.J., RIOS and ALIOTTA, JJ
The judgment, entered pursuant to the August 13, 2010 order granting defendant's motion for summary judgment, dismissed the complaint.
ORDERED that the judgment 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 granted defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that plaintiff's assignors had failed to appear for duly scheduled examinations under oath (EUOs). A judgment was subsequently entered, from which the appeal is deemed to have been taken (see CPLR 5501 [c]).
Contrary to plaintiff's contentions on appeal, the affidavits
submitted by defendant established that the EUO scheduling letters and
denial of claim forms had been timely mailed (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]), and that plaintiff's assignors had failed to appear for the duly scheduled EUOs (see Stephen Fogel Psychological,
P.C. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 35 AD3d 720 ; W & Z Acupuncture, P.C. v Amex Assur. Co., 24 Misc 3d 142[A], 2009 NY Slip Op 51732[U] [App
Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2009]). Plaintiff does not claim that it or its assignors responded in any way to the EUO requests. Therefore, plaintiff's
objections regarding those requests will not be heard (cf. Westchester County Med. Ctr. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 262 AD2d 553 ; Urban Radiology,
P.C. v Tri-State Consumer Ins. Co., 27 Misc 3d 140[A], 2010 NY Slip Op 50987[U] [App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2010]; Mary
Immaculate Hosp. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 21 Misc 3d
130[A], 2008 NY Slip Op 52046[U] [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2008]). Plaintiff's remaining contentions either lack merit or are not properly before this court
as they are raised for the first time on appeal (see Joe v Upper Room Ministries, Inc., 88 AD3d 963 ).
Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.
Pesce, P.J., Rios and Aliotta, JJ., concur. Decision
Date: September 13, 2012
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.