June 17, 2013

Ss Med. Care, P.C. v Hartford Ins. Co. (2013 NY Slip Op 51032(U))

Headnote

The relevant facts in this case were that SS Medical Care, P.C. as the assignee of Beato Boyd was seeking to recover first-party no-fault benefits from Hartford Insurance Company. The main issue decided by the court was whether Hartford Insurance Company had timely and properly denied the plaintiff's claims based on the assignor's failure to appear for scheduled examinations under oath (EUOs). The holding of the court was that defendant had properly demonstrated that it had mailed the EUO scheduling letters and denials, and as the plaintiff raised no other argument with respect to the granting of defendant's cross motion, the order denying plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and granting defendant's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint was affirmed.

Reported in New York Official Reports at Ss Med. Care, P.C. v Hartford Ins. Co. (2013 NY Slip Op 51032(U))

Ss Med. Care, P.C. v Hartford Ins. Co. (2013 NY Slip Op 51032(U)) [*1]

Ss Med. Care, P.C. v Hartford Ins. Co.

2013 NY Slip Op 51032(U) [40 Misc 3d 126(A)]

Decided on June 17, 2013

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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 17, 2013

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

PRESENT: : PESCE, P.J., RIOS and ALIOTTA, JJ
2011-1514 K C.

SS Medical Care, P.C. as Assignee of BEATO BOYD, Appellant, —
against
Hartford Insurance Company, Respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Carolyn E. Wade, J.), entered April 11, 2011. 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 defendant had timely and properly denied plaintiff’s claims based upon plaintiff’s assignor’s failure to appear for duly scheduled examinations under oath (EUOs). The Civil Court denied plaintiff’s motion and granted defendant’s cross motion.

Contrary to plaintiff’s sole argument on appeal with respect to defendant’s cross motion, defendant properly demonstrated that it had mailed the EUO scheduling letters and denials at issue (see St. Vincent’s Hosp. of Richmond v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 50 AD3d 1123 [2008]; Delta Diagnostic Radiology, P.C. v Chubb Group of Ins., 17 Misc 3d 16 [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2007]). As plaintiff raises no other argument with respect to the granting of [*2]defendant’s cross motion, the order denying plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and granting defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is affirmed.

Pesce, P.J., Rios and Aliotta, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: June 17, 2013