Harmonic Physical Therapy, P.C. v Praetorian Ins. Co.

Annotate this Case
[*1] Harmonic Physical Therapy, P.C. v Praetorian Ins. Co. 2011 NY Slip Op 51597(U) Decided on August 24, 2011 Appellate Term, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law ยง 431. This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on August 24, 2011
APPELLATE TERM OF THE SUPREME COURT, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT: Torres, J.P., Shulman, Hunter, Jr., JJ
570187/11.

Harmonic Physical Therapy, P.C. a/a/o Victor Giron, Plaintiff-Respondent, - -

against

Praetorian Insurance Company, Defendant-Appellant.

Defendant appeals from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Bronx County (Ben R. Barbato, J.), entered December 14, 2010, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

 

Per Curiam.

Order (Ben R. Barbato, J.), entered December 14, 2010, reversed, with $10 costs, motion granted and complaint dismissed. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.

In this action to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, defendant's documentary submissions established prima facie that it mailed the notices of the independent medical examinations (IME) to the assignor and that the assignor failed to appear (see Unitrin Advantage Ins. Co. v Bayshore Physical Therapy, PLLC, 82 AD3d 559, 560 [2011]; Stephen Fogel Psychological, P.C. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 35 AD3d 720, 721 [2006]; Apollo Chiropractic Care, P.C. v Praetorian Ins. Co., 27 Misc 3d 139[A], 2010 NY Slip Op 50911[U] [2010]). In opposition, plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue regarding the reasonableness of the requests or the assignor's failure to attend the IMEs (see Unitrin Advantage Ins. Co. v Bayshore Physical Therapy, PLLC, 82 AD3d at 560; Inwood Hill Med., P.C. v General Assur. Co., 10 Misc 3d 18, 20 [2005]).
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.
Decision Date: August 24, 2011

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.