October 27, 2017
XVV, Inc. v Interboro Ins. Co. (2017 NY Slip Op 51468(U))
Headnote
Reported in New York Official Reports at XVV, Inc. v Interboro Ins. Co. (2017 NY Slip Op 51468(U))
XVV, Inc. v Interboro Ins. Co. |
2017 NY Slip Op 51468(U) [57 Misc 3d 147(A)] |
Decided on October 27, 2017 |
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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 October 27, 2017
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 2d, 11th and 13th
JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : MICHAEL L. PESCE, P.J., THOMAS P. ALIOTTA, MARTIN M.
SOLOMON, JJ
NO. 2015-270 K C
against
Interboro Insurance Company, Appellant.
Law Office of Jason Tenenbaum, P.C. (Jason Tenenbaum, Esq.), for appellant. Law Offices Emilia I. Rutigliano, P.C. (Maria Josovich, Esq.), for respondent.
Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Carol Ruth Feinman, J.), entered December 10, 2014, deemed from a judgment of the same court entered January 13, 2016 (see CPLR 5501 [c]). The judgment, entered pursuant to the December 10, 2014 order granting plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and denying defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $2,076.64.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, with $25 costs.
In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, defendant appeals from an order of the Civil Court which denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and granted defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The appeal is deemed from a judgment entered January 13, 2016 which awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $2,076.64 (see CPLR 5501 [c]).
Contrary to its arguments on appeal, defendant did not raise a triable issue of fact as to whether it had not received all requested verification and, therefore, it did not demonstrate that this action is premature. Defendant’s papers do not make any showing that the specific verification at issue, an affidavit of plaintiff’s assignor, had ever been requested from plaintiff.
Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.
PESCE, P.J., ALIOTTA and SOLOMON, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Paul Kenny
Chief Clerk
Decision Date: October 27, 2017