June 11, 2012
BR Clinton Chiropractic, P.C. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. (2012 NY Slip Op 51068(U))
Headnote
Reported in New York Official Reports at BR Clinton Chiropractic, P.C. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. (2012 NY Slip Op 51068(U))
BR Clinton Chiropractic, P.C. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. |
2012 NY Slip Op 51068(U) [35 Misc 3d 147(A)] |
Decided on June 11, 2012 |
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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports. |
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 2d, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : RIOS, J.P., PESCE and ALIOTTA, JJ
2011-173 K C.
against
New York Central Mutual Fire Insurance Company, Appellant.
Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Johnny Lee Baynes, J.), entered October 7, 2010. The order, insofar as appealed from as limited by the brief, denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
ORDERED that the order, insofar as appealed from, is reversed, without costs, and defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted.
In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and plaintiff cross-moved for summary judgment. The Civil Court found that defendant and plaintiff had established their prima facie cases and that the sole issue for trial was whether plaintiff’s assignor had failed to appear at scheduled independent medical examinations (IMEs). Defendant appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of the order as denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
In support of its motion, defendant submitted, among other things, affidavits from its
examining chiropractors, both of whom stated that plaintiff’s assignor had failed to appear for the
scheduled IMEs. In opposition to the motion, plaintiff submitted an affirmation from its counsel,
which failed to raise a triable issue of fact.
[*2]
As plaintiff has not challenged the Civil Court’s
finding, in effect, that defendant is otherwise entitled to judgment, defendant’s motion for
summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted (see Stephen Fogel Psychological, P.C. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 35
AD3d 720 [2006]; Delta Diagnostic
Radiology, P.C. v Integon Natl. Ins. Co., 24 Misc 3d 136[A], 2009 NY Slip Op
51502[U] [App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2009]; Delta Diagnostic Radiology, P.C. v American Tr. Ins. Co., 18 Misc 3d
128[A], 2007 NY Slip Op 52455[U] [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2007]; A. Khodadadi Radiology, P.C. v NY Cent.
Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 16 Misc 3d 131[A], 2007 NY Slip Op 51342[U] [App Term, 2d &
11th Jud Dists 2007]).
Accordingly, the order, insofar as appealed from, is reversed and defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted.
Rios, J.P., Pesce and Aliotta, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: June 11, 2012