June 9, 2014
MDJ Med., P.C. v Praetorian Ins. Co. (2014 NY Slip Op 50895(U))
Headnote
Reported in New York Official Reports at MDJ Med., P.C. v Praetorian Ins. Co. (2014 NY Slip Op 50895(U))
MDJ Med., P.C. v Praetorian Ins. Co. |
2014 NY Slip Op 50895(U) [43 Misc 3d 145(A)] |
Decided on June 9, 2014 |
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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 June 9, 2014
PRESENT: Schoenfeld, J.P., Shulman, Ling-Cohan, JJ.
570217/14
against
Praetorian Insurance Company, Defendant-Respondent.
Defendant appeals from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Bronx County (Ruben Franco, J.), entered September 26, 2013, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and granted plaintiff’s cross motion for summary judgment.
Per Curiam.
Order (Ruben Franco, J.), entered September 26, 2013, reversed, with $10 costs, plaintiff’s cross motion denied and defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint granted. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.
The defendant-insurer made a prima facie showing of entitlement to summary judgment dismissing this action for first-party no-fault benefits by submitting competent evidence establishing the proper and timely mailing of the notices scheduling the assignor’s independent medical examinations and examinations under oath, as well as the assignor’s failure to appear (see American Tr. Ins. Co. v Lucas, 111 AD3d 423 [2013]). With respect to the latter, defendant’s moving submission, including the sworn affidavits of the scheduled examining physicians, set forth facts sufficient to demonstrate the affiants’ personal knowledge of the assignor’s repeated failures to appear for the duly scheduled IMEs, and the affiants’ actions, “in the ordinary course of business,” in advising defendants’ third-party biller of such nonappearance. As to defendant’s mailing of the EUO notices, we note that the assignor’s address as listed in the notices was consistent with that appearing on the claim form submitted by the plaintiff medical provider, which, notably, offered no persuasive explanation, either below or on appeal, as to why the notices were returned to defendant as “unclaimed.” In opposition, plaintiff did not specifically deny the assignor’s nonappearance or otherwise raise a triable issue with respect thereto, or as to the mailing or reasonableness of the underlying notices (see Unitrin Advantage Ins. Co. v Bayshore Physical Therapy, PLLC, 82 AD3d 559, 560 [2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 705 [2011]).
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.
I concurI concurI concur
Decision Date: June 09, 2014