July 19, 2019
Right Aid Med. Supply Corp. v Travelers Ins. Co. (2019 NY Slip Op 51184(U))
Headnote
Reported in New York Official Reports at Right Aid Med. Supply Corp. v Travelers Ins. Co. (2019 NY Slip Op 51184(U))
Right Aid Med. Supply Corp. v Travelers Ins. Co. |
2019 NY Slip Op 51184(U) [64 Misc 3d 138(A)] |
Decided on July 19, 2019 |
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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 July 19, 2019
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 2d, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : MICHAEL L. PESCE, P.J., MICHELLE WESTON, THOMAS P. ALIOTTA, JJ
2017-797 K C
against
Travelers Insurance Company, Respondent.
The Rybak Firm, PLLC (Damin J. Toell of counsel), for appellant. Law Office of Aloy O. Ibuzor (Janice A. Robinson of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal from a decision of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Steven Z. Mostofsky, J.), dated September 26, 2016, deemed from a judgment of that court entered November 29, 2016 (see CPLR 5512 [a]). The judgment, entered pursuant to a decision of the same court dated September 26, 2016, after a nonjury trial, dismissed the complaint.ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, with $25 costs.
In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, the sole issue for trial (see CPLR 3212 [g]) was whether the verification requested by defendant had been provided. The only witness at trial was an employee of defendant who testified that defendant had not received the requested verification. The Civil Court found the testimony to be credible and entered judgment dismissing the complaint.
Contrary to plaintiff’s sole argument, the testimony by defendant’s witness was sufficient to establish that defendant had not received the requested verification. The witness, a 27-year employee of defendant, testified regarding defendant’s policies and procedures for the receipt of mail, both at the Buffalo office, where certain items were sent, and the Melville office, where the claims at issue were processed.
Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.
PESCE, P.J., WESTON and ALIOTTA, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Paul Kenny
Chief Clerk
Decision Date: July 19, 2019