January 20, 2017

Exon Med. Equip., Inc. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (2017 NY Slip Op 50117(U))

Headnote

The relevant facts considered by the court were that Exon Medical Equipment, Inc. was seeking to recover no-fault benefits as an assignee of MADIKABA TOUNKARA, but the defendant, State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co., had filed a motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the grounds that the plaintiff had failed to provide requested verification. The main issue decided was whether the plaintiff had provided the necessary verification to support their claim for no-fault benefits. The holding of the court was that the order granting the defendant's motion for summary judgment was affirmed, without costs, on the basis that the plaintiff had indeed failed to provide the required verification. This decision was made in concurrence by the appellate judges.

Reported in New York Official Reports at Exon Med. Equip., Inc. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (2017 NY Slip Op 50117(U))

Exon Med. Equip., Inc. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (2017 NY Slip Op 50117(U)) [*1]

Exon Med. Equip., Inc. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.

2017 NY Slip Op 50117(U) [54 Misc 3d 136(A)]

Decided on January 20, 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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 January 20, 2017

SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS

PRESENT: : MARANO, P.J., GARGUILO and BRANDS, JJ.
2015-702 S C

Exon Medical Equipment, Inc., as Assignee of MADIKABA TOUNKARA, Appellant,
against
State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co., Respondent.

Appeal from an order of the District Court of Suffolk County, Third District (C. Stephen Hackeling, J.), dated March 11, 2015. The order granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs.

In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, plaintiff appeals from an order of the District Court which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that plaintiff had failed to provide requested verification.

For the reasons stated in Advantage Radiology P.C., as Assignee of Sofia Dana v Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. (___ Misc 3d ___, 2017 NY Slip Op _____ [appeal No. 2015-2123 S C], decided herewith), the order is affirmed.

Marano, P.J., Garguilo and Brands, JJ., concur.

Decision Date: January 20, 2017