January 21, 2022

JFL Med. Care, P.C. v Lancer Ins. Co. (2022 NY Slip Op 50056(U))

Headnote

The main issue in this case was whether the provider, JFL Medical Care, P.C., could recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits from Lancer Insurance Co. The court considered the fact that defendant had established that the independent medical examination scheduling letters had been mailed to plaintiff's assignor, which was a requirement for the case. The court found that plaintiff's cross motion for summary judgment was properly denied, and affirmed the order granting defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Therefore, the holding of the case was that the order was affirmed, with $25 costs.

Reported in New York Official Reports at JFL Med. Care, P.C. v Lancer Ins. Co. (2022 NY Slip Op 50056(U))

JFL Med. Care, P.C. v Lancer Ins. Co. (2022 NY Slip Op 50056(U)) [*1]

JFL Med. Care, P.C. v Lancer Ins. Co.

2022 NY Slip Op 50056(U) [74 Misc 3d 127(A)]

Decided on January 21, 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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 January 21, 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
2020-742 K C

JFL Medical Care, P.C., as Assignee of Durham, Sarah, Appellant,
against
Lancer Insurance Co., Respondent.

The Rybak Firm, PLLC (Damin J. Toell and Richard Rozhik of counsel), for appellant. Hollander Legal Group, P.C. (Allan S. Hollander of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Jill R. Epstein, J.), entered November 7, 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 of the Civil Court granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and denying plaintiff’s cross motion for summary judgment.

Contrary to plaintiff’s only contention with respect to defendant’s motion for summary judgment, defendant established that the independent medical examination scheduling letters had been mailed to plaintiff’s assignor (see St. Vincent’s Hosp. of Richmond v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 50 AD3d 1123 [2008]; Madison Prods. of USA, Inc. v 21st Century Ins. Co., 71 Misc 3d 138[A], 2021 NY Slip Op 50446[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists [2021]).

In view of the foregoing, plaintiff’s cross motion for summary judgment was properly denied.

Accordingly, the order is affirmed.

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

ENTER:

Paul Kenny

Chief Clerk
Decision Date: January 21, 2022