May 3, 2019

LMS Acupuncture, P.C. v State Farm Mut. Automotive Ins. Co. (2019 NY Slip Op 50696(U))

Headnote

In this case, LMS Acupuncture, P.C. was appealing an order from the Civil Court of the City of New York, which granted State Farm Mutual Automotive Ins. Co.'s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and denied the plaintiff's cross motion for summary judgment. The main issue in this case was whether plaintiff failed to appear for duly scheduled examinations under oath (EUOs). The court found that the proof submitted by the defendant was sufficient to demonstrate that the plaintiff had indeed failed to appear for the EUOs. The court also held that the defendant was not required to set forth objective reasons for requesting the EUOs in order to establish their entitlement to summary judgment. Therefore, the court affirmed the order granting the defendant's motion for summary judgment and denying the plaintiff's cross motion for summary judgment.

Reported in New York Official Reports at LMS Acupuncture, P.C. v State Farm Mut. Automotive Ins. Co. (2019 NY Slip Op 50696(U))

LMS Acupuncture, P.C. v State Farm Mut. Automotive Ins. Co. (2019 NY Slip Op 50696(U)) [*1]

LMS Acupuncture, P.C. v State Farm Mut. Automotive Ins. Co.

2019 NY Slip Op 50696(U) [63 Misc 3d 147(A)]

Decided on May 3, 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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 May 3, 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
2017-653 K C

LMS Acupuncture, P.C., as Assignee of Monroe, Rashod, Appellant,
against
State Farm Mutual Automotive Ins. Co., Respondent.

The Rybak Firm, PLLC (Damin J. Toell of counsel), for appellant. Rivkin Radler, LLP (Stuart M. Bodoff of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Richard J. Montelione, J.), entered January 30, 2017. The order granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and denied plaintiff’s cross motion for summary judgment.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with $25 costs.

In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Civil Court which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that plaintiff had failed to appear for duly scheduled examinations under oath (EUOs) and denied plaintiff’s cross motion for summary judgment.

Contrary to plaintiff’s contention, the proof submitted by defendant in support of its motion was sufficient to demonstrate that plaintiff had failed to appear for the EUOs (see Stephen Fogel Psychological, P.C. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 35 AD3d 720 [2006]). Furthermore, defendant was not required to set forth objective reasons for requesting the EUOs in order to establish its prima facie entitlement to summary judgment, as an insurer need only demonstrate “as a matter of law that it twice duly demanded an [EUO] from the [provider] . . . [*2]that the [provider] twice failed to appear, and that the [insurer] issued a timely denial of the claim[]” (Interboro Ins. Co. v Clennon, 113 AD3d 596, 597 [2014]; see Parisien v Metlife Auto & Home, 54 Misc 3d 143[A], 2017 NY Slip Op 50208[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2017]; Palafox PT, P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 49 Misc 3d 144[A], 2015 NY Slip Op 51653[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2015]). As plaintiff’s remaining contention lacks merit, plaintiff has not provided any basis to disturb the Civil Court’s order.

Accordingly, the order is affirmed.

PESCE, P.J., ALIOTTA and ELLIOT, JJ., concur.

ENTER:
Paul Kenny
Chief Clerk
Decision Date: May 03, 2019