December 15, 2017
Past v NY Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. (2017 NY Slip Op 51774(U))
Headnote
Reported in New York Official Reports at Past v NY Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. (2017 NY Slip Op 51774(U))
Past v NY Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. |
2017 NY Slip Op 51774(U) [58 Misc 3d 132(A)] |
Decided on December 15, 2017 |
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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 December 15, 2017
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 2d, 11th and 13th
JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : MICHAEL L. PESCE, P.J., THOMAS P. ALIOTTA, MARTIN M.
SOLOMON, JJ
2014-2749 Q C
against
NY Central Mut. Fire Ins. Co., Appellant.
Gullo & Associates, LLP (Cristina Carollo, Esq.), for appellant. Baker Sanders, LLC, for respondent (no brief filed).
Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Carmen R. Velasquez, J.), entered October 7, 2014. The order, insofar as appealed from and as limited by the brief, denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
ORDERED that the order, insofar as appealed from, is reversed, with $30 costs, and defendant’s motion for summary judgment is granted.
In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that plaintiff’s assignor had failed to appear for duly scheduled independent medical examinations (IMEs). The Civil Court denied defendant’s motion but made, in effect, CPLR 3212 (g) findings that defendant’s denial of claim form had been timely and proper and that the sole issue for trial was whether plaintiff’s assignor had failed to appear for the scheduled IMEs.
In support of its motion, defendant submitted an affirmation from the doctor who was to perform the IMEs, which affirmation was sufficient to establish that plaintiff’s assignor had failed to appear for the scheduled IMEs (see Stephen Fogel Psychological, P.C. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 35 AD3d 720 [2006]). In view of the foregoing, and as plaintiff has not challenged the Civil Court’s finding, in effect, that defendant is otherwise entitled to judgment, the order, insofar as appealed from, is reversed and defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the [*2]complaint is granted.
PESCE, P.J., ALIOTTA and SOLOMON, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Paul Kenny
Chief Clerk
Decision Date: December 15, 2017