November 1, 2016

Prime Diagnostic Med., P.C. v Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co. (2016 NY Slip Op 51612(U))

Headnote

The court considered the fact that Prime Diagnostic Medical, P.C., as the assignee of Khadine Isaac, was seeking to recover first-party no-fault benefits from Liberty Mutual Fire Ins. Co. The main issues decided were whether defendant had timely mailed requests and follow-up requests for verification, and whether plaintiff had failed to respond to those requests. The holding of the case was that the affidavit of defendant's claim specialist established that the requests were timely mailed, and that plaintiff had failed to respond to those requests. As a result, the court affirmed the order granting defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Reported in New York Official Reports at Prime Diagnostic Med., P.C. v Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co. (2016 NY Slip Op 51612(U))

Prime Diagnostic Med., P.C. v Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co. (2016 NY Slip Op 51612(U)) [*1]

Prime Diagnostic Med., P.C. v Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co.

2016 NY Slip Op 51612(U) [53 Misc 3d 147(A)]

Decided on November 1, 2016

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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 1, 2016

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

PRESENT: : PESCE, P.J., ALIOTTA and SOLOMON, JJ.
2014-11 Q C

Prime Diagnostic Medical, P.C., as Assignee of KHADINE ISAAC, Appellant,
against
Liberty Mutual Fire Ins. Co., Respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Ulysses Bernard Leverett, J.), entered December 9, 2013. 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.

Contrary to plaintiff’s first contention on appeal, the affidavit of defendant’s claim specialist established that defendant had timely mailed requests and follow-up requests for verification (see St. Vincent’s Hosp. of Richmond v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 50 AD3d 1123 [2008]). Contrary to plaintiff’s remaining contention, the affidavit of defendant’s claim specialist was also sufficient to establish that plaintiff had failed to respond to those requests.

Accordingly, the order is affirmed.

Pesce, P.J., Aliotta and Solomon, JJ., concur.

Decision Date: November 01, 2016