September 20, 2019

Satya Drug Corp. v Global Liberty Ins. Co. of N.Y. (2019 NY Slip Op 51505(U))

Headnote

The main issue in this case was whether the defendant-insurer's motion for summary judgment dismissing the underlying first-party no-fault action should be granted. The court considered whether the defendant had submitted competent evidence of the assignor's nonappearance at scheduled independent medical examinations (IMEs). The holding of the court was that the defendant's motion for summary judgment was properly denied, as the evidence submitted by the defendant, including a conclusory affirmation of the IME doctor and an affidavit from the IME scheduling vendor, lacked probative value and did not establish personal knowledge of the assignor's nonappearance. Therefore, the court affirmed the order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, denying the defendant's motion for summary judgment.

Reported in New York Official Reports at Satya Drug Corp. v Global Liberty Ins. Co. of N.Y. (2019 NY Slip Op 51505(U))

Satya Drug Corp. v Global Liberty Ins. Co. of N.Y. (2019 NY Slip Op 51505(U)) [*1]

Satya Drug Corp. v Global Liberty Ins. Co. of N.Y.

2019 NY Slip Op 51505(U) [65 Misc 3d 127(A)]

Decided on September 20, 2019

Appellate Term, First 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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 September 20, 2019

SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT: Shulman, P.J., Cooper, Edmead, JJ.
570002/19

Satya Drug Corp., a/a/o Attiya Alexander, Plaintiff-Respondent,
against
Global Liberty Insurance Company of New York, Defendant-Appellant.

Defendant appeals from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County (Debra R. Samuels, J.), entered November 27, 2018, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Per Curiam.

Order (Debra R. Samuels, J.), entered November 27, 2018, affirmed, with $10 costs.

Defendant-insurer’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the underlying first-party no-fault action was properly denied, inasmuch as it failed to submit competent evidence of the assignor’s nonappearance at scheduled independent medical examinations (IMEs) (see Stephen Fogel Psychological, P.C. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 35 AD3d 720, 721 [2006]). The conclusory affirmation of defendant’s IME doctor lacked probative value, since he failed to adequately state the basis of his recollection, some 16 months later, that the assignor did not appear on the scheduled IME dates (see Utica Acupuncture P.C. v Amica Mut. Ins. Co., 55 Misc 3d 126[A], 2017 NY Slip Op50331[U][App Term, 1st Dept 2017]; Five Boro Med. Equip., Inc. V Praetorian Ins. Co., 53 Misc 3d 138[A], 2016 NY Slip Op 51481[U] [App Term, 1st Dept 2016]). Nor was personal knowledge of the assignor’s nonappearance established by the affidavit from the IME schedulingvendor. “The ‘mere fact that the recording of [the] third-party statements [of nonappearances] by the [IME doctor] might be routine, imports no guarantee of the truth, or even reliability, of those statements’ (Matter of Leon RR, 48 NY2d 117, 123 [1979]; cf. Viviane Etienne Med. Care, P.C. v Country-Wide Ins. Co., 25 NY3d 498, 508 [2015]” (Metro 8 Med. Equip., Inc. v ELRAC, Inc., 50 Misc 3d 140[A], 2016 NY Slip Op 50174[U][App Term, 1st Dept 2016]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

I concur I concur I concur
Decision Date: September 20, 2019