September 27, 2016

Compas Med., P.C. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. (2016 NY Slip Op 51417(U))

Headnote

The court considered the facts of an action by a medical provider seeking to recover first-party no-fault benefits, in which the defendant insurance company filed a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the complaint. The main issue decided was whether the defendant's proof was sufficient to give rise to a presumption that the verification requests and denial of claim forms had been properly mailed, as well as whether the claims were timely denied. The court held that the defendant's proof was sufficient to establish that the verification requests had been properly mailed and that the claims were timely denied, and therefore affirmed the order granting the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Reported in New York Official Reports at Compas Med., P.C. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. (2016 NY Slip Op 51417(U))

Compas Med., P.C. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. (2016 NY Slip Op 51417(U)) [*1]

Compas Med., P.C. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co.

2016 NY Slip Op 51417(U) [53 Misc 3d 133(A)]

Decided on September 27, 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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 September 27, 2016

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

PRESENT: : PESCE, P.J., ALIOTTA and SOLOMON, JJ.
2014-770 Q C

Compas Medical, P.C., as Assignee of KAMALETTIN BAYRUK, Appellant,
against
New York Central Mutual Fire Insurance Company, Respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (William A. Viscovich, J.), entered March 14, 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.

Contrary to plaintiff’s contentions, the proof submitted by defendant in support of its motion was sufficient to give rise to a presumption that the verification requests and denial of claim forms had been properly mailed (see St. Vincent’s Hosp. of Richmond v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 50 AD3d 1123 [2008]). As defendant demonstrated that it received the requested verification on May 28, 2013, the claims were timely denied.

Accordingly, the order is affirmed.

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

Decision Date: September 27, 2016