May 3, 2019

Pavlova v Hartford Ins. Co. (2019 NY Slip Op 50697(U))

Headnote

The court considered a case in which a provider sought to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits from an insurance company. The insurance company had moved for summary judgment, arguing that the provider had failed to appear for scheduled examinations under oath. The court also considered the provider's cross motion for summary judgment. The main issue decided was whether the provider's failure to appear for scheduled examinations under oath was a valid reason for the insurance company to deny the claim for no-fault benefits. The holding of the case was that the court affirmed the order granting the insurance company's motion for summary judgment and denying the provider's cross motion for summary judgment.

Reported in New York Official Reports at Pavlova v Hartford Ins. Co. (2019 NY Slip Op 50697(U))

Pavlova v Hartford Ins. Co. (2019 NY Slip Op 50697(U)) [*1]

Pavlova v Hartford Ins. Co.

2019 NY Slip Op 50697(U) [63 Misc 3d 147(A)]

Decided on May 3, 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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 3, 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
2017-688 K C

Ksenia Pavlova, D.O., as Assignee of Winter, Seigmund, Appellant,
against
Hartford Insurance Company, Respondent.

The Rybak Firm, PLLC (Damin J. Toell of counsel), for appellant. Mackey Butts & Wise, LLP (Joshua E. Mackey of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (John J. Kelley, J.), entered November 14, 2016. The order granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and denied plaintiff’s cross motion for summary judgment.

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 granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that plaintiff had failed to appear for duly scheduled examinations under oath and denied plaintiff’s cross motion for summary judgment.

For the reasons stated in Pavlova, as Assignee of George Brathwaite v Hartford Ins. Co. (__ Misc 3d ___, 2019 NY Slip Op _____ [appeal No. 2017-600 K C], decided herewith), the order is affirmed.

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

ENTER:
Paul Kenny
Chief Clerk
Decision Date: May 03, 2019