December 15, 2017

Maxford, Inc. v Utica Mut. Ins. Co. (2017 NY Slip Op 51756(U))

Headnote

The court considered a case brought by Maxford, Inc. as the assignee of Reynolds Gregory against Utica Mutual Insurance Company. The main issue decided was whether the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, which was granted by the Civil Court, was appropriate. The court held that the defendant had demonstrated prima facie that its denial of claim form had been issued within 30 days of receiving the bills at issue, and that the plaintiff had failed to rebut that showing. Additionally, the court found that the plaintiff had failed to appear for scheduled examinations under oath as required, and as the plaintiff raised no other issue on appeal with respect to this defense, the order for summary judgment dismissing the complaint was affirmed.

Reported in New York Official Reports at Maxford, Inc. v Utica Mut. Ins. Co. (2017 NY Slip Op 51756(U))

Maxford, Inc. v Utica Mut. Ins. Co. (2017 NY Slip Op 51756(U)) [*1]

Maxford, Inc. v Utica Mut. Ins. Co.

2017 NY Slip Op 51756(U) [58 Misc 3d 131(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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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
2014-2066 Q C

Maxford, Inc., as Assignee of Reynolds, Gregory, Appellant,
against
Utica Mutual Insurance Company, Respondent.

The Rybak Firm, PLLC (Damin J. Toell, Esq.), for appellant. Dodge & Monroy, P.C. (Peter X. Dodge, Esq.), for respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Richard G. Latin, J.), entered July 31, 2014. The order granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

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 two grounds, including that plaintiff had failed to appear for duly scheduled examinations under oath (EUO).

Contrary to plaintiff’s contention, defendant demonstrated, prima facie, that its denial of claim form had been issued within 30 days of its receipt of the bills at issue, and plaintiff failed to rebut that showing. As plaintiff raised no other issue on appeal with respect to defendant’s proof regarding its defense that plaintiff had failed to appear for scheduled EUOs, we need not consider plaintiff’s remaining arguments.

Accordingly, the order is affirmed.

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

ENTER:
Paul Kenny
Chief Clerk
Decision Date: December 15, 2017