August 28, 2020

Pavlova v Nationwide Ins. (2020 NY Slip Op 50999(U))

Headnote

The court considered the fact that a provider was seeking to recover first-party no-fault benefits and that the defendant had moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the grounds that the plaintiff's assignor had failed to appear for scheduled examinations under oath (EUOs). The main issue decided was whether the defendant's proof sufficiently established that the plaintiff's assignor had indeed failed to appear for the scheduled EUOs. The holding of the court was that the defendant's proof was sufficient and therefore the order granting the defendant's motion for summary judgment and dismissing the complaint was affirmed.

Reported in New York Official Reports at Pavlova v Nationwide Ins. (2020 NY Slip Op 50999(U))

Pavlova v Nationwide Ins. (2020 NY Slip Op 50999(U)) [*1]

Pavlova v Nationwide Ins.

2020 NY Slip Op 50999(U) [68 Misc 3d 132(A)]

Decided on August 28, 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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 August 28, 2020

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

PRESENT: : THOMAS P. ALIOTTA, P.J., DAVID ELLIOT, WAVNY TOUSSAINT, JJ
2018-2017 K C

Ksenia Pavlova, D.O., as Assignee of Ferril, Gabriel J., Appellant,
against
Nationwide Ins., Respondent.

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

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Robin Kelly Sheares, J.), entered July 20, 2018. 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 on the ground that plaintiff’s assignor had failed to appear for duly scheduled examinations under oath (EUOs), and denying plaintiff’s cross motion for summary judgment.

Contrary to plaintiff’s sole contention, defendant’s proof sufficiently established that plaintiff’s assignor had failed to appear for the scheduled EUOs (see Stephen Fogel Psychological, P.C. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 35 AD3d 720 [2006]).

Accordingly, the order is affirmed.

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

ENTER:
Paul Kenny
Chief Clerk
Decision Date: August 28, 2020