Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Peter Paul Sweeney, J.), entered November 1, 2010, deemed from a judgment of the same court entered December 14, 2010 (see CPLR 5501 [c]).
All Boro Psychological Servs., P.C. v Allstate Ins. Co.
Decided on February 20, 2013
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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 SOLOMON, JJ
The judgment, entered pursuant to the November 1, 2010 order denying plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and granting defendant's cross motion for summary judgment, dismissed the complaint.
ORDERED that the judgment is reversed, with $30 costs, so much of the order entered November 2, 2010 as granted defendant's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is vacated and defendant's cross motion is denied.
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. A judgment was subsequently entered, from which the appeal is deemed to have been taken (see CPLR 5501 [c]).
We find that, contrary to plaintiff's contention, plaintiff failed to demonstrate its prima facie entitlement to summary judgment, as the affidavit plaintiff submitted in support of its motion failed to establish that the claim at issue had not been timely denied or that defendant had issued a timely denial of claim that was conclusory, vague or without merit as a matter of law (Ave T MPC Corp. v Auto One Ins. Co., 32 Misc 3d 128[A], 2011 NY Slip Op 51292[U] [App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2011]; see also Westchester Med. Ctr. v Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 78 AD3d 1168 ). However, plaintiff correctly argues that defendant's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint should have been denied. Defendant's cross motion papers failed to establish that its time to pay or deny plaintiff's claim had been tolled, as defendant did not demonstrate, as a matter of law, that the letters scheduling the independent medical examination of plaintiff's assignor 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]).
Accordingly, the judgment is reversed, so much of the order entered November 2, 2010 as granted defendant's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is vacated and defendant's cross motion is denied.
Pesce, P.J., Rios and Solomon, JJ., concur. Decision Date: February 20, 2013
© 1992-2013 VersusLaw ...