Essential Acupuncture Servs., P.C. v Ameriprise Auto & Home Ins.

[*1] Essential Acupuncture Servs., P.C. v Ameriprise Auto & Home Ins. 2012 NY Slip Op 52404(U) Decided on December 21, 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 2d, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : PESCE, P.J., RIOS and SOLOMON, JJ
2010-2777 K C.

Essential Acupuncture Services, P.C. as Assignee of TELMA GARIJO, Respondent,

against

Ameriprise Auto & Home Insurance, Appellant.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Robin S. Garson, J.), entered August 17, 2010, deemed from a judgment of the same court entered September 13, 2010 (see CPLR 5501 [c]). The judgment, entered pursuant to the August 17, 2010 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 $2,204.77.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without 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 granted plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and denied defendant's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. A judgment was subsequently entered, from which the appeal is deemed to have been taken (see CPLR 5501 [c]).

Inasmuch as defendant raises no issue on appeal regarding whether plaintiff established its prima facie entitlement to summary judgment, we do not pass upon the propriety of the Civil [*2]Court's determination with respect thereto.

To raise a triable issue of fact based on the failure of plaintiff's owner to appear at scheduled examinations under oath (EUOs), defendant was required to demonstrate that its initial and follow-up EUO scheduling letters had been timely mailed (see Insurance Department Regulations [11 NYCRR] §§ 65-3.5 [b]; 65-3.6 [b]) and to establish, through an affidavit by one with personal knowledge, that plaintiff's owner had failed to appear for the EUOs (see Stephen Fogel Psychological, P.C. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 35 AD3d 720 [2006]). Since defendant failed to establish 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]; Delta Diagnostic Radiology, P.C. v Chubb Group of Ins., 17 Misc 3d 16 [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2007]), defendant failed to demonstrate that the 30-day claim determination period (Insurance Department Regulations [11 NYCRR] § 65-3.8) had been tolled. As a result, defendant failed to establish that its denial of claim forms were timely and, thus, that it is not precluded from raising as a defense the failure of plaintiff's owner to appear for the EUOs (see Presbyterian Hosp. in City of NY v Maryland Cas. Co., 90 NY2d 274, 282 [1997]).

Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

Pesce, P.J., Rios and Solomon, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: December 21, 2012