June 3, 2016

Renelique v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. (2016 NY Slip Op 50868(U))

Headnote

The relevant facts considered by the court in Renelique v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. were that the plaintiff, Pierre Jean Jacques Renelique, was seeking to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits. The defendant, New York Central Mutual Fire Insurance Company, had denied the claims based on the plaintiff's assignor's failure to appear for independent medical examinations. The main issue decided was whether the denial of the claim form was timely and properly mailed by the defendant. The court held that the affidavit submitted by the defendant established the timely and proper mailing of the denial of claim form, and as a result, the court affirmed the order denying the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and granting the defendant's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Reported in New York Official Reports at Renelique v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. (2016 NY Slip Op 50868(U))

Renelique v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. (2016 NY Slip Op 50868(U)) [*1]

Renelique v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co.

2016 NY Slip Op 50868(U) [51 Misc 3d 151(A)]

Decided on June 3, 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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 3, 2016

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

PRESENT: : PESCE, P.J., ALIOTTA and SOLOMON, JJ.
2013-1755 Q C

Pierre Jean Jacques Renelique, as Assignee of MERCEDES SANDOVAL, Appellant,
against
New York Central Mutual Fire Insurance Company, Respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Maureen A. Healy, J.), entered April 25, 2013. 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 moved for summary judgment, and defendant cross-moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that it had timely and properly denied the claims based on plaintiff’s assignor’s failure to appear for independent medical examinations. The Civil Court denied plaintiff’s motion and granted defendant’s cross motion.

Contrary to plaintiff’s contention on appeal, the affidavit submitted by defendant in support of its motion established the timely and proper mailing of the denial of claim form (see St. Vincent’s Hosp. of Richmond v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 50 AD3d 1123 [2008]). As plaintiff’s remaining contentions are improperly raised for the first time on appeal and are speculative, the order is affirmed.

Pesce, P.J., Aliotta and Solomon, JJ., concur.

Decision Date: June 03, 2016