August 28, 2020
Psychology YME, P.C. v Global Liberty Ins. Co. of N.Y. (2020 NY Slip Op 50992(U))
Headnote
Reported in New York Official Reports at Psychology YME, P.C. v Global Liberty Ins. Co. of N.Y. (2020 NY Slip Op 50992(U))
Psychology YME, P.C. v Global Liberty Ins. Co. of N.Y. |
2020 NY Slip Op 50992(U) [68 Misc 3d 131(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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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
2018-1624 K C
against
Global Liberty Ins. Co. of N.Y., Respondent.
Gary Tsirelman, P.C. (Darya Klein of counsel), for appellant. Law Office of Jason Tenenbaum, P.C. (Jason Tenenbaum, Esq.), for respondent (no brief filed).
Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Odessa Kennedy, J.), entered May 16, 2018. The order granted defendant’s 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 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).
Contrary to plaintiff’s contention, defendant established as a matter of law that, as to the claim at issue, defendant “twice duly demanded an [EUO] from the [provider’s] assignor, who had allegedly been injured in a motor vehicle accident, that the assignor twice failed to appear, and that the [insurer] issued a timely denial of the claim[ ]” (Interboro Ins. Co. v Clennon, 113 AD3d 596, 597 [2014]). As a result, since appearance at a duly demanded EUO “is a condition precedent to the insurer’s liability on the policy” (Stephen Fogel Psychological, P.C. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 35 AD3d 720, 722 [2006]), contrary to plaintiff’s contention, defendant established its entitlement to summary judgment. Plaintiff’s remaining contentions are raised for the first time on appeal and, in any event, lack merit.
Accordingly, the order is affirmed.
ALIOTTA, P.J., ELLIOT and TOUSSAINT, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Paul Kenny
Chief Clerk
Decision Date: August 28, 2020