November 8, 2019

Pavlova v Hartford Ins. Co. (2019 NY Slip Op 51812(U))

Headnote

The relevant facts considered by the court in this case were that a medical provider, the appellant, was seeking to recover first-party no-fault benefits from the respondent insurance company. The main issue decided by the court was whether the appellant was entitled to summary judgment in their favor or if the respondent's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint should be granted. The court ultimately held that the order denying the appellant's motion for summary judgment and granting the respondent's cross motion for summary judgment was affirmed. This decision was based on the fact that the appellant's assignor had failed to appear for scheduled examinations under oath, which was a requirement for recovery of the no-fault benefits. As a result, the complaint was dismissed.

Reported in New York Official Reports at Pavlova v Hartford Ins. Co. (2019 NY Slip Op 51812(U))

Pavlova v Hartford Ins. Co. (2019 NY Slip Op 51812(U)) [*1]

Pavlova v Hartford Ins. Co.

2019 NY Slip Op 51812(U) [65 Misc 3d 148(A)]

Decided on November 8, 2019

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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 8, 2019

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

PRESENT: : MICHAEL L. PESCE, P.J., THOMAS P. ALIOTTA, BERNICE D. SIEGAL, JJ
2018-961 K C

Ksenia Pavlova, D.O., as Assignee of Daniel Pharel, Appellant,
against
Hartford Insurance Company, Respondent.

The Rybak Firm, PLLC (Damin J. Toell of counsel), for appellant. Rivkin Radler, LLP (Frank P. Izzo of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Michael Gerstein, J.), entered January 22, 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 on the ground that plaintiff’s assignor had failed to appear for duly scheduled examinations under oath.

For the reasons stated in Allay Med. Servs., P.C., as Assignee of Harrison, Henry v Travelers Ins. Co. (___ Misc 3d ___, 2019 NY Slip Op _____ [appeal No. 2017-2383 K C], decided herewith), the order is affirmed.

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

ENTER:
Paul Kenny
Chief Clerk
Decision Date: November 08, 2019