November 3, 2017

Professional Health Imaging, P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (2017 NY Slip Op 51506(U))

Headnote

The court considered the fact that the provider, Professional Health Imaging, P.C., was seeking to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits from State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. The main issue was whether the plaintiff had failed to appear for scheduled examinations under oath, which would result in the dismissal of the complaint. The holding of the court was that the order granting the defendant's motion for summary judgment and denying the plaintiff's cross motion was affirmed. This decision was based on the reasons stated in a previous case involving the same parties. Therefore, the court upheld the dismissal of the complaint due to the plaintiff's failure to appear for scheduled examinations under oath.

Reported in New York Official Reports at Professional Health Imaging, P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (2017 NY Slip Op 51506(U))

Professional Health Imaging, P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (2017 NY Slip Op 51506(U)) [*1]
Professional Health Imaging, P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.
2017 NY Slip Op 51506(U) [57 Misc 3d 149(A)]
Decided on November 3, 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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 November 3, 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
2014-2403 K C

Professional Health Imaging, P.C., as Assignee of David I. Ezekwesili, Appellant,

against

State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co., Respondent.

Gary Tsirelman, P.C. (Irena Golodkeyer, Esq.), for appellant. Rivkin Radler, LLP (Stuart M. Bodoff, Esq.), for respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Devin P. Cohen, J.), entered August 20, 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 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 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. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (51 Misc 3d 143[A], 2016 NY Slip Op 50698[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2016]), the order is affirmed.

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


ENTER:
Paul Kenny
Chief Clerk
Decision Date: November 03, 2017