June 6, 2016

Ultimate Health Prods., Inc. v Allstate Ins. Co. (2016 NY Slip Op 50921(U))

Headnote

The relevant facts considered by the court were that Ultimate Health Products, Inc. was seeking to recover first-party no-fault benefits as the assignee of Kerwin Boyea, and had moved for summary judgment. Allstate Insurance Company had cross-moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, arguing that the action was premature because Ultimate Health Products, Inc. had failed to provide requested verification. The main issue decided by the court was whether the defendant's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint should be granted. The court held that the defendant's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint was denied, reversing the decision of the Civil Court. The court reasoned that the decision in a similar case, Great Health Care Chiropractic, P.C. v Hereford Ins. Co., led them to conclude that the defendant's cross motion should be denied. In summary, the court considered the failure to provide requested verification and determined that the defendant's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint should be denied.

Reported in New York Official Reports at Ultimate Health Prods., Inc. v Allstate Ins. Co. (2016 NY Slip Op 50921(U))

Ultimate Health Prods., Inc. v Allstate Ins. Co. (2016 NY Slip Op 50921(U)) [*1]

Ultimate Health Prods., Inc. v Allstate Ins. Co.

2016 NY Slip Op 50921(U) [52 Misc 3d 128(A)]

Decided on June 6, 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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 6, 2016

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

PRESENT: : PESCE, P.J., ALIOTTA and SOLOMON, JJ.
2013-2131 K C

Ultimate Health Products, Inc., as Assignee of KERWIN BOYEA, Appellant,
against
Allstate Insurance Company, Respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Katherine A. Levine, J.), entered March 4, 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 modified by providing that defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is denied; as so modified, the order is affirmed, without 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 the action was premature because plaintiff had failed to provide requested verification. By order entered March 4, 2013, the Civil Court denied plaintiff’s motion and granted defendant’s cross motion.

For the reasons stated in Great Health Care Chiropractic, P.C., as Assignee of Carlos Thomas v Hereford Ins. Co. (___ Misc 3d ___, 2016 NY Slip Op ___ [appeal No. 2013-1720 Q C], decided herewith), the order is modified by providing that defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is denied.

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

Decision Date: June 06, 2016