Daily Med. Equip. Distrib. Ctr., Inc. v National Liab. & Fire Ins. Co.

Annotate this Case
[*1] Daily Med. Equip. Distrib. Ctr., Inc. v National Liab. & Fire Ins. Co. 2016 NY Slip Op 51323(U) Decided on September 15, 2016 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 September 15, 2016
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 2d, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : PESCE, P.J., ALIOTTA and SOLOMON, JJ.
2014-494 Q C

Daily Medical Equipment Distribution Center, Inc., as Assignee of Evelyn Rivas, Appellant,

against

National Liability & Fire Insurance Company, Respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Jodi Orlow, J.), entered February 5, 2014. The order denied plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and granted defendant's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with $25 costs.

In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, plaintiff moved for summary judgment, and defendant cross-moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that plaintiff's assignor had failed to appear for duly scheduled independent medical examinations (IMEs). By order entered February 5, 2014, the Civil Court denied plaintiff's motion and granted defendant's cross motion.

Contrary to plaintiff's contention, the affidavits submitted by defendant in support of its cross motion established the timely and proper mailing of the IME scheduling letters and the denial of claim forms (see St. Vincent's Hosp. of Richmond v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 50 AD3d 1123 [2008]). In light of the foregoing, plaintiff has shown no basis to disturb the order from which it has appealed.

Accordingly, the order is affirmed.

Pesce, P.J., Aliotta and Solomon, JJ., concur.


Decision Date: September 15, 2016

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.