May 10, 2019

Chapa Prods. Corp. v 21st Century Ins. Co. (2019 NY Slip Op 50741(U))

Headnote

The relevant facts in this case involved a dispute between Chapa Products Corp., as Assignee of Isabel Corniel, and 21st Century Insurance Company. Chapa Products Corp. sought to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, but the defendant argued that the plaintiff had not timely submitted the claim underlying the first cause of action and had failed to provide requested verification as to the claim underlying the second cause of action. The main issue decided by the court was whether the plaintiff had timely submitted the claims and verification as required, and whether the defendant had received the verification at issue. The holding of the court was that while the defendant had demonstrated that the claim underlying the first cause of action had not been timely submitted and that the defendant had not received the verification at issue, the proof submitted by the plaintiff was sufficient to give rise to a presumption that the claim form and verification had been timely mailed. Therefore, on this record, neither party was entitled to summary judgment.

Reported in New York Official Reports at Chapa Prods. Corp. v 21st Century Ins. Co. (2019 NY Slip Op 50741(U))

Chapa Prods. Corp. v 21st Century Ins. Co. (2019 NY Slip Op 50741(U)) [*1]

Chapa Prods. Corp. v 21st Century Ins. Co.

2019 NY Slip Op 50741(U) [63 Misc 3d 150(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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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
2016-1527 K C

Chapa Products Corp., as Assignee of Isabel Corniel, Appellant,
against
21st Century Insurance Company, Respondent.

The Rybak Firm, PLLC (Damin J. Toell of counsel), for appellant. Law Offices of Buratti, Rothenberg & Burns (Sharon A. Brennan 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 May 11, 2016. 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 modified by providing that defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is denied; as so modified, the order is affirmed, without costs.

In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, plaintiff moved for summary judgment, and defendant cross-moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that plaintiff had not timely submitted the claim underlying the first cause of action and had failed to provide requested verification as to the claim underlying the second cause of action. By order entered May 11, 2016, the Civil Court denied plaintiff’s motion and granted defendant’s cross motion.

Contrary to plaintiff’s contentions, the proof submitted by defendant was sufficient to demonstrate that the verification requests and the denial of claim forms at issue had been timely and properly mailed (see St. Vincent’s Hosp. of Richmond v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 50 AD3d 1123 [2008]); that the claim underlying the first cause of action had not been timely submitted; and that defendant had not received the verification at issue. However, the proof submitted by plaintiff was sufficient to give rise to a presumption that the claim form underlying the first cause of action and the verification at issue with respect to the second cause of action had been timely mailed to defendant (see Residential Holding Corp. v Scottsdale Ins. Co., 286 AD2d 679 [2001]; see also Compas Med., P.C. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 50 Misc 3d [*2]146[A], 2016 NY Slip Op 50307[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2016]). Therefore, on this record, neither party is entitled to summary judgment.

Accordingly, the order is modified by providing that defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is denied.

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