November 12, 2015

EMA Acupuncture v Statewide Ins. Co. (2015 NY Slip Op 51622(U))

Headnote

The relevant facts considered by the court in EMA Acupuncture v Statewide Ins. Co. include that the defendant appealed from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Bronx County, which granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the complaint. The main issue decided by the court was whether the defendant had raised a triable issue in opposition to the plaintiff's prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law to recover first-party no-fault benefits. The court held that the defendant failed to raise a triable issue, as the affidavit of the defendant's no-fault claims supervisor was insufficient to raise an issue of fact. Therefore, the court affirmed the order of the Civil Court and granted plaintiff's motion for summary judgment.

Reported in New York Official Reports at EMA Acupuncture v Statewide Ins. Co. (2015 NY Slip Op 51622(U))

EMA Acupuncture v Statewide Ins. Co. (2015 NY Slip Op 51622(U)) [*1]

EMA Acupuncture v Statewide Ins. Co.

2015 NY Slip Op 51622(U)

Decided on November 12, 2015

Appellate Term, First 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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 12, 2015

SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT: Schoenfeld, J.P., Shulman, Hunter, Jr., JJ.
570432/15

EMA Acupuncture, a/a/o Yelena Antasevich, Plaintiff-Respondent,
against
Statewide Insurance Company, Defendant-Appellant.

Defendant appeals from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Bronx County (Julia I. Rodriguez, J.), dated March 20, 2009, which granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on the complaint.

Per Curiam.

Order (Julia I. Rodriguez, J.), dated March 20, 2009, affirmed, with $10 costs.

In opposition to plaintiff’s prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on its complaint to recover first-party no-fault benefits (see Viviane Etienne Med. Care, P.C. v Country-Wide Ins. Co., 25 NY3d 498 [2015]), defendant failed to raise a triable issue. While defendant contended that the claim was premature because plaintiff failed to respond to its verification requests, the affidavit of defendant’s no-fault claims supervisor, who had no personal knowledge that the verification letters were actually mailed, and described in only the most general terms her office’s mailing practices and procedures, was insufficient to raise an issue of fact (see Westchester Med. Ctr. v Countrywide Co., 45 AD3d 676, 677 [2007]). Accordingly, Civil Court properly granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. In view of our determination, we reach no other issues.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.
I concur I concur I concur
Decision Date: November 12, 2015