June 23, 2016

Professional Health Imaging, P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (2016 NY Slip Op 51029(U))

Headnote

The court considered the motion for summary judgment by the defendant to dismiss the complaint, which was on the grounds that the plaintiff had failed to appear for scheduled examinations under oath. The plaintiff had also filed a cross motion for summary judgment, or in the alternative, to strike the defendant's answer and affirmative defenses, and to compel the defendant to respond to discovery demands. The main issue decided was whether the defendant's motion for summary judgment to dismiss the complaint was granted, and if the plaintiff's cross motion for summary judgment or alternative relief was denied. The holding of the case was that the court affirmed the order, with costs of $25, on the basis of the reasons stated in another similar case, and the decision date was June 23, 2016.

Reported in New York Official Reports at Professional Health Imaging, P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (2016 NY Slip Op 51029(U))

Professional Health Imaging, P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (2016 NY Slip Op 51029(U)) [*1]

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

2016 NY Slip Op 51029(U) [52 Misc 3d 135(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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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.
2014-2145 K C

Professional Health Imaging, P.C., as Assignee of Hakob Avanesyan, 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 23, 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