August 2, 2019
Compas Med., P.C. v American Tr. Ins. Co. (2019 NY Slip Op 51257(U))
Headnote
Reported in New York Official Reports at Compas Med., P.C. v American Tr. Ins. Co. (2019 NY Slip Op 51257(U))
Compas Med., P.C. v American Tr. Ins. Co. |
2019 NY Slip Op 51257(U) [64 Misc 3d 141(A)] |
Decided on August 2, 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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 August 2, 2019
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 2d, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : MICHAEL L. PESCE, P.J., MICHELLE WESTON, THOMAS P. ALIOTTA, JJ
2017-847 K C
against
American Transit Ins. Co., Respondent.
The Rybak Firm, PLLC (Damin J. Toell of counsel), for appellant. Law Office of Daniel J. Tucker, for respondent (no brief filed).
Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Theresa M. Ciccotto, J.), entered January 31, 2017. 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 (EUOs).
Contrary to plaintiff’s contentions on appeal, defendant established that the EUO scheduling letters had been timely mailed (see St. Vincent’s Hosp. of Richmond v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 50 AD3d 1123 [2008]) and that plaintiff’s assignor had failed to appear for the duly scheduled EUOs (see Stephen Fogel Psychological, P.C. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 35 AD3d 720 [2006]). To the extent plaintiff challenges the address to which the EUO scheduling letters were mailed, a review of the record shows that defendant mailed the EUO scheduling letters to the address provided by plaintiff in the bills it sent to defendant.
Accordingly, the order is affirmed.
PESCE, P.J., WESTON and ALIOTTA, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Paul Kenny
Chief Clerk
Decision Date: August 02, 2019