November 6, 2020

Lacina v Hereford Ins. Co. (2020 NY Slip Op 51333(U))

Headnote

The court considered the denial of a provider's motion for summary judgment and the granting of the defendant's cross motion for summary judgment in a case involving the recovery of assigned first-party no-fault benefits. The main issue decided was whether the defendant's affidavit and contemporaneous affidavits were sufficient to establish the proper mailing of denial of claim forms. The court held that the affidavit executed by the defendant's no-fault supervisor and the contemporaneous affidavits executed by the defendant's mailing officer were indeed sufficient to establish the proper mailing of the denial of claim forms. Therefore, the court affirmed the order, with costs.

Reported in New York Official Reports at Lacina v Hereford Ins. Co. (2020 NY Slip Op 51333(U))

Lacina v Hereford Ins. Co. (2020 NY Slip Op 51333(U)) [*1]

Lacina v Hereford Ins. Co.

2020 NY Slip Op 51333(U) [69 Misc 3d 139(A)]

Decided on November 6, 2020

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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 November 6, 2020

SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 2d, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS

PRESENT: : THOMAS P. ALIOTTA, P.J., DAVID ELLIOT, BERNICE D. SIEGAL, JJ
2018-2040 K C

Francis J. Lacina, M.D., as Assignee of Henry, Akilah, Appellant,
against
Hereford Insurance Co., Respondent.

The Rybak Firm, PLLC (Damin J. Toell of counsel), for appellant. Goldberg, Miller & Rubin, P.C. (Timothy Bishop of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Michael Gerstein, J.), entered August 10, 2018. The order denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and granted defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

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 which denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and granted defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Contrary to plaintiff’s contention on appeal, the affidavit executed by defendant’s no-fault supervisor and the contemporaneous affidavits executed by defendant’s mailing officer were sufficient to establish the proper mailing of the denial of claim forms (see St. Vincent’s Hosp. of Richmond v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 50 AD3d 1123 [2008]).

Accordingly, the order is affirmed.

ALIOTTA, P.J., ELLIOT and SIEGAL, JJ., concur.

ENTER:
Paul Kenny
Chief Clerk
Decision Date: November 6, 2020