November 16, 2018

Solution Bridge, Inc. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (2018 NY Slip Op 51648(U))

Headnote

The court considered a case in which Solution Bridge, Inc. appealed an order granting State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co.'s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The main issue decided was whether defendant's proof was sufficient to demonstrate that it had timely mailed initial and follow-up verification requests and had not received the requested verification. The court held that, despite defendant's proof, there was a triable issue of fact as to whether plaintiff provided the requested verification. Therefore, the court reversed the order and denied defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Reported in New York Official Reports at Solution Bridge, Inc. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (2018 NY Slip Op 51648(U))

Solution Bridge, Inc. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (2018 NY Slip Op 51648(U)) [*1]

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

2018 NY Slip Op 51648(U) [61 Misc 3d 143(A)]

Decided on November 16, 2018

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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 16, 2018

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

PRESENT: : MICHAEL L. PESCE, P.J., THOMAS P. ALIOTTA, DAVID ELLIOT, JJ
2016-1463 K C

Solution Bridge, Inc., as Assignee of Torres, Lynette, 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 (Steven Z. Mostofsky, J.), entered April 4, 2016. The order granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

ORDERED that the order is reversed, with $30 costs, and defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is denied.

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 based upon plaintiff’s failure to provide requested verification within 120 days of the initial verification request (see 11 NYCRR 65-3.5 [o]).

Contrary to plaintiff’s contentions, defendant’s proof was sufficient to demonstrate prima facie that it had timely mailed initial and follow-up verification requests (see St. Vincent’s Hosp. of Richmond v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 50 AD3d 1123 [2008]); that it had not received the requested verification; and that it had timely denied the claim on that ground. However, as plaintiff further argues, the affidavit submitted by plaintiff 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 id.). In light of the foregoing, there is a triable issue of fact as to whether plaintiff provided the requested verification.

Accordingly, the order is reversed and defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is denied.

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

ENTER:
Paul Kenny
Chief Clerk
Decision Date: November 16, 2018