August 18, 2017

Compas Med., P.C. v Hereford Ins. Co. (2017 NY Slip Op 51083(U))

Headnote

The main issue in Compas Med., P.C. v Hereford Ins. Co. was whether the defendant provided insurance coverage for the vehicle in question on the date of the accident at issue. The court considered the affidavit submitted by the defendant's employee, which described a record search revealing that there was no relevant insurance policy in effect on the date of the accident. The court held that the defendant's affidavit was sufficient to demonstrate, prima facie, that the plaintiff's claim did not arise out of a covered incident. As a result, the Civil Court properly denied the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and granted the defendant's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Therefore, the court affirmed the order.

Reported in New York Official Reports at Compas Med., P.C. v Hereford Ins. Co. (2017 NY Slip Op 51083(U))

Compas Med., P.C. v Hereford Ins. Co. (2017 NY Slip Op 51083(U)) [*1]

Compas Med., P.C. v Hereford Ins. Co.

2017 NY Slip Op 51083(U) [56 Misc 3d 139(A)]

Decided on August 18, 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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 August 18, 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
2014-1319 Q C

Compas Medical, P.C., as Assignee of Pierre, Eddy, Appellant,
against
Hereford Insurance Co., Respondent.

The Rybak Firm, PLLC (Damin J. Toell, Esq.), for appellant. Law Offices of Rubin & Nazarian (Lawrence R. Miles, Esq.), for respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Ulysses Bernard Leverett, J.), entered May 20, 2014. 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 affirmed, with $25 costs.

In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, plaintiff moved for summary judgment. Defendant opposed the motion and cross-moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that defendant did not provide insurance coverage for the vehicle in question on the date of the accident at issue. By order entered May 20, 2014, the Civil Court denied plaintiff’s motion and granted defendant’s cross motion.

In support of its cross motion and in opposition to plaintiff’s motion, defendant submitted an affidavit by its employee who described the details of a record search she had performed and stated that her search had revealed that there was no relevant Hereford Insurance Company policy in effect on the date of the accident in question. We find that defendant’s affidavit was sufficient to demonstrate, prima facie, that plaintiff’s claim did not arise out of a covered incident (see [*2]Central Gen. Hosp. v Chubb Group of Ins. Cos., 90 NY2d 195, 199 [1997]). As plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact, the Civil Court properly denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and granted defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint (see Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557 [1980]).

Accordingly, the order is affirmed.

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

ENTER:
Paul Kenny
Chief Clerk
Decision Date: August 18, 2017