June 1, 2018

Pavlova v Country Wide Ins. Co. (2018 NY Slip Op 50843(U))

Headnote

The court considered the denial of summary judgment to the appellant and the granting of summary judgment to the respondent in a case where a healthcare provider was seeking to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits. The main issue decided was whether the respondent had issued an insurance policy covering the subject loss, and the court held that the proof submitted by the respondent was sufficient to demonstrate that no policy had been issued. Therefore, the court affirmed the order denying the appellant's motion for summary judgment and granting the respondent's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Reported in New York Official Reports at Pavlova v Country Wide Ins. Co. (2018 NY Slip Op 50843(U))

Pavlova v Country Wide Ins. Co. (2018 NY Slip Op 50843(U)) [*1]

Pavlova v Country Wide Ins. Co.

2018 NY Slip Op 50843(U) [59 Misc 3d 151(A)]

Decided on June 1, 2018

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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 1, 2018

SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 2d, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS

PRESENT: : MICHAEL L. PESCE, P.J., THOMAS P. ALIOTTA, DAVID ELLIOT, JJ
2015-2980 Q C

Ksenia Pavlova, D.O., as Assignee of Jones, Christopher, Appellant,
against
Country Wide Insurance Company, Respondent.

The Rybak Firm, PLLC (Damin J. Toell of counsel), for appellant. Jaffe & Koumourdas, LLP (Jean H. Kang of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Terrence C. O’Connor, J.), entered November 24, 2015. The order denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and granted defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

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 denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, and granted defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that defendant had not issued an insurance policy covering the subject loss.

Contrary to plaintiff’s argument as to defendant’s cross motion, the proof submitted by defendant was sufficient to demonstrate that it had not issued a policy covering the subject loss (see e.g. New Way Med. Supply Corp. v Dollar Rent A Car, 49 Misc 3d 154[A], 2015 NY Slip Op 51794[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2015]; Delta Diagnostic Radiology, P.C. v American Tr. Ins. Co., 44 Misc 3d 136[A], 2014 NY Slip Op 51240[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2014]).

Accordingly, the order is affirmed.

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

ENTER:
Paul Kenny
Chief Clerk
Decision Date: June 01, 2018