Rainbow Supply of NY, Inc. v Clarendon Natl. Ins. Co.

Annotate this Case
[*1] Rainbow Supply of NY, Inc. v Clarendon Natl. Ins. Co. 2012 NY Slip Op 51489(U) Decided on August 6, 2012 Appellate Term, Second 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 6, 2012
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 2d, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : PESCE, P.J., WESTON and ALIOTTA, JJ
2010-2699 K C.

Rainbow Supply of NY, Inc. as Assignee of MANUEL SANTIAGO, Respondent,

against

Clarendon National Ins. Co., Appellant.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Robin S. Garson, J.), entered July 2, 2010. The order denied defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.


ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs.

In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, defendant appeals from an order which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

The affidavit submitted by defendant in support of its motion for summary judgment failed to establish that defendant had timely denied the claim 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]). Thus, the Civil Court properly denied defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, as defendant failed to establish that it is not precluded from raising as a defense the failure of plaintiff's assignor to appear for an independent medical examination (see Presbyterian Hosp. in City of NY v Maryland Cas. Co., 90 NY2d 274, 282 [1997]).

Accordingly, the order is affirmed. [*2]

Pesce, P.J., Weston and Aliotta, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: August 06, 2012

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.