September 16, 2015

Ultimate Health Prods., Inc. v American Tr. Ins. Co. (2015 NY Slip Op 51404(U))

Headnote

The relevant facts considered by the court were that the plaintiff, Ultimate Health Products, Inc., was seeking to recover first-party no-fault benefits as the assignee of Seraphin Pierre. The main issue decided was whether the defendant, American Transit Insurance Company, had timely and properly denied the claims based on the assignor's failure to appear for examinations under oath (EUOs). The court held that the defendant had established that the EUO scheduling letters had been timely mailed, and therefore 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 Ultimate Health Prods., Inc. v American Tr. Ins. Co. (2015 NY Slip Op 51404(U))

Ultimate Health Prods., Inc. v American Tr. Ins. Co. (2015 NY Slip Op 51404(U)) [*1]

Ultimate Health Prods., Inc. v American Tr. Ins. Co.

2015 NY Slip Op 51404(U) [49 Misc 3d 129(A)]

Decided on September 16, 2015

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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 September 16, 2015

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

PRESENT: PESCE, P.J., ALIOTTA and SOLOMON, JJ.
2013-546 Q C

Ultimate Health Products, Inc. as Assignee of Seraphin Pierre, Appellant,
against
American Transit Ins. Co., Respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Ulysses Bernard Leverett, J.), entered February 20, 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 examinations under oath (EUOs). The Civil Court denied plaintiff’s motion and granted defendant’s cross motion.

Contrary to plaintiff’s sole contention on appeal with respect to the merits of defendant’s cross motion, defendant established that the EUO scheduling letters had been timely mailed (see St. Vincent’s Hosp. of Richmond v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 50 AD3d 1123 [2008]; Residential Holding Corp. v Scottsdale Ins. Co., 286 AD2d 679 [2001]).

Accordingly, the order is affirmed.

Pesce, P.J., Aliotta and Solomon, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: September 16, 2015