July 21, 2017
Harbor Chiropractic, P.C. v Travelers Ins. Co. (2017 NY Slip Op 50959(U))
Headnote
Reported in New York Official Reports at Harbor Chiropractic, P.C. v Travelers Ins. Co. (2017 NY Slip Op 50959(U))
Harbor Chiropractic, P.C. v Travelers Ins. Co. |
2017 NY Slip Op 50959(U) [56 Misc 3d 135(A)] |
Decided on July 21, 2017 |
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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 July 21, 2017
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 2d, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : MICHAEL L. PESCE, P.J., THOMAS P. ALIOTTA, MARTIN M. SOLOMON, JJ
2014-1809 Q C
against
Travelers Insurance Company, Appellant.
Law Offices of Aloy O. Ibuzor (Miriam Granov, Esq.), for appellant. The Odierno Law Firm, P.C. (Paul A. Bargellini, Esq.), for respondent.
Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Jodi Orlow, J.), entered June 26, 2014. 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 on the ground that the action is premature due to plaintiff’s failure to provide requested verification. The Civil Court denied defendant’s motion but, in effect, limited the issues for trial, pursuant to CPLR 3212 (g), to whether plaintiff properly responded to defendant’s verification requests. As limited by its brief, defendant appeals from so much of the order as denied its motion.
Defendant’s moving papers demonstrated, prima facie, that it had not received the requested verification. In opposition to the motion, plaintiff did not show that the requested verification had been provided to defendant prior to the commencement of the action. 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 on the ground that the action is premature is granted.
PESCE, P.J., ALIOTTA and SOLOMON, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Paul Kenny
Chief Clerk
Decision Date: July 21, 2017