Jamaica Dedicated Med. Care, P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.

[*1] Jamaica Dedicated Med. Care, P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. 2012 NY Slip Op 51493(U) Decided on August 6, 2012 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 August 6, 2012
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 2d, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : PESCE, P.J., RIOS and ALIOTTA, JJ
2010-2892 K C.

Jamaica Dedicated Medical Care, P.C. as Assignee of ALEXANDER MONTGOMERY, Appellant,

against

State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co., Respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Ingrid Joseph, J.), entered August 3, 2010. The order, insofar as appealed from as limited by the brief, granted the branch of defendant's motion seeking summary judgment dismissing so much of the complaint as sought to recover upon claims for services rendered between July 17, 2007 and October 3, 2007, and denied plaintiff's cross motion for summary judgment with respect to those claims.

ORDERED that the order, insofar as appealed from, is affirmed, without costs.

In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and plaintiff cross- moved for summary judgment. Insofar as is relevant to this appeal, the Civil Court granted the branch of defendant's motion seeking summary judgment dismissing so much of the complaint as sought to recover on claims for services rendered between July 17, 2007 and October 3, 2007, which claims had been denied on the ground that plaintiff had failed to appear for examinations under oath (EUOs), and denied plaintiff's cross motion for summary judgment with respect to those claims.

Contrary to plaintiff's contentions, the affidavits submitted by defendant were sufficient to establish that the EUO scheduling letters and denial of claim forms had been timely and [*2]properly mailed (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]). Plaintiff's remaining contentions are similarly without merit. Accordingly, the order, insofar as appealed from, is affirmed.

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