June 23, 2016

Professional Health Imaging, P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (2016 NY Slip Op 51028(U))

Headnote

The court considered the fact that the plaintiff, a medical provider, was seeking to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits from the defendant, an insurance company. The main issue before the court was whether the plaintiff had failed to appear for scheduled examinations under oath, which was grounds for the defendant's motion for summary judgment. The court also considered the plaintiff's cross motion for summary judgment or to compel the defendant to respond to discovery demands. The holding of the case was that the court affirmed the order granting the defendant's motion for summary judgment and denying the plaintiff's cross motion. The court's decision was based on the same reasons stated in another case, Professional Health Imaging, P.C., as Assignee of Luis Lopez v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., and the order was affirmed with $25 costs.

Reported in New York Official Reports at Professional Health Imaging, P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (2016 NY Slip Op 51028(U))

Professional Health Imaging, P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (2016 NY Slip Op 51028(U)) [*1]

Professional Health Imaging, P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.

2016 NY Slip Op 51028(U) [52 Misc 3d 134(A)]

Decided on June 23, 2016

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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 23, 2016

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

PRESENT: : PESCE, P.J., WESTON and ELLIOT, JJ.
2014-2136 K C

Professional Health Imaging, P.C., as Assignee of Latiesha Bryant, Appellant,
against
State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co., Respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Katherine A. Levine, J.), entered July 22, 2014. The order granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and denied plaintiff’s cross motion for summary judgment or, in the alternative, to strike defendant’s answer and affirmative defenses, and to compel defendant to respond to discovery demands.

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

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 plaintiff had failed to appear for duly scheduled examinations under oath. Plaintiff cross-moved for summary judgment or, in the alternative, to strike defendant’s answer and affirmative defenses, and to compel defendant to respond to discovery demands. Plaintiff appeals from an order of the Civil Court granting defendant’s motion and denying plaintiff’s cross motion.

For the reasons stated in Professional Health Imaging, P.C., as Assignee of Luis Lopez v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (__ Misc 3d ___, 2016 NY Slip Op _____ [appeal No. 2014-2016 K C], decided herewith), the order is affirmed.

Pesce, P.J., Weston and Elliot, JJ., concur.

Decision Date: June 23, 2016