May 10, 2019

Solution Bridge, Inc. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (2019 NY Slip Op 50749(U))

Headnote

The relevant facts in this case involved an action brought by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits. The appellant, Solution Bridge, Inc., appealed an order of the Civil Court that granted the branch of the defendant's motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the second cause of action. The main issue decided was whether there was a triable issue of fact as to whether the verification had been provided by the appellant, as the affidavit submitted in opposition to defendant's motion was deemed sufficient to give rise to a presumption that the requested verification had been mailed to, and received by, defendant. The holding of the court was that the order, insofar as appealed from, was reversed and the branch of the defendant's motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the second cause of action was denied.

Reported in New York Official Reports at Solution Bridge, Inc. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (2019 NY Slip Op 50749(U))

Solution Bridge, Inc. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (2019 NY Slip Op 50749(U)) [*1]

Solution Bridge, Inc. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.

2019 NY Slip Op 50749(U) [63 Misc 3d 151(A)]

Decided on May 10, 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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 May 10, 2019

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

PRESENT: : MICHAEL L. PESCE, P.J., THOMAS P. ALIOTTA, DAVID ELLIOT, JJ
2016-2994 K C

Solution Bridge, Inc., as Assignee of Perez, Elia, Appellant,
against
State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co., Respondent.

The Rybak Firm, PLLC (Damin J. Toell of counsel), for appellant. De Martini & Yi, LLP (Bryan Visnius of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Theresa M. Ciccotto, J.), entered August 1, 2016. The order, insofar as appealed from as limited by the brief, granted the branch of defendant’s motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the second cause of action.

ORDERED that the order, insofar as appealed from, is reversed, with $30 costs, and the branch of defendant’s motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the second cause of action is denied.

In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, plaintiff appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Civil Court as granted the branch of defendant’s motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the second cause of action.

Plaintiff correctly argues that the affidavit it submitted in opposition to defendant’s motion was sufficient to give rise to a presumption that the requested verification had been mailed to, and received by, defendant (see St. Vincent’s Hosp. of Richmond v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 50 AD3d 1123 [2008]), and thus that there is a triable issue of fact as to whether the verification had been provided. In light of the foregoing, we reach no other issue (see generally Nyack Hosp. v General Motors Acceptance Corp., 8 NY3d 294 [2007]).

Accordingly, the order, insofar as appealed from, is reversed and the branch of defendant’s motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the second cause of action is denied.

PESCE, P.J., ALIOTTA and ELLIOT, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Paul Kenny
Chief Clerk
Decision Date: May 10, 2019