June 14, 2019
Excel Med. & Diagnostic, P.C. v Park Ins. Co. (2019 NY Slip Op 50989(U))
Headnote
Reported in New York Official Reports at Excel Med. & Diagnostic, P.C. v Park Ins. Co. (2019 NY Slip Op 50989(U))
Excel Med. & Diagnostic, P.C. v Park Ins. Co. |
2019 NY Slip Op 50989(U) [64 Misc 3d 128(A)] |
Decided on June 14, 2019 |
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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 June 14, 2019
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 2d, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : MICHAEL L. PESCE, P.J., THOMAS P. ALIOTTA, DAVID ELLIOT, JJ
2017-832 K C
against
Park Ins. Co., Appellant.
Gullo & Associates, LLP (Cristina Carollo of counsel), for appellant. Gary Tsirelman, P.C. (Joseph Padrucco of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Harriet L. Thompson, J.), entered November 4, 2016. The order, insofar as appealed from and 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, with $30 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 based upon plaintiff’s assignor’s failure to appear for duly scheduled independent medical examinations (IMEs). The Civil Court denied defendant’s motion but, in effect pursuant to CPLR 3212 (g), limited the issue for trial to whether plaintiff’s assignor had failed to appear for the scheduled IMEs.
In support of its motion, defendant submitted an affirmation from the doctor who was to perform the IMEs, which affirmation was sufficient to establish that plaintiff’s assignor had failed to appear for the scheduled IMEs (see Stephen Fogel Psychological, P.C. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 35 AD3d 720 [2006]). In view of the foregoing, and as plaintiff has not challenged the Civil Court’s finding, in effect, that defendant is otherwise entitled to judgment, the order, insofar as appealed from, is reversed and defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted.
PESCE, P.J., ALIOTTA and ELLIOT, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Paul Kenny
Chief Clerk
Decision Date: June 14, 2019