Pierre J. Renelique MD, P.C. v Travelers Ins. Co.
Annotate this CaseDecided on July 31, 2017
Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County
Pierre J. Renelique MD, P.C. assignee of Brunmaire Yanik, Plaintiff,
against
Travelers Insurance Company, Defendant.
033085/2014
Attorney for Plaintiff:
Mikhail Kopelevich Esq. from Kopelevich & Feldsherova, P.C.,
Attorney for Defendant Heather M. Brown-Osen:
Duane Frankson from the Law Office of Aloy O Ibuzor
Mary V. Rosado, J.
A bench trial was commenced and completed on July 7, 2017. In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, the parties stipulated that Plaintiff established its prima facie case by timely submitting the bills at issue to Defendant. The burden now shifts to Defendant to show timely mailing of the notices of Examinations Under Oath (hereinafter "EUO") and the failure of the assignor to attend the scheduled EUOs.
When an issue involves EUOs, a defendant must prove that its EUO requests were timely mailed and that a plaintiff's assignor failed to appear for same (see Crescent Radiology, PLLC v American Transit Ins. Co., 31 Misc 3d 134[A] [App Term 2d Dept 2011]). Defendant produced Ms. Marcy Miller, an attorney who currently oversees EUO scheduling and the EUO process in the Law Office of Aloy Ibuzor, the firm representing Defendant in this matter. She testified regarding the Defendant's office procedures when scheduling EUO's and the procedure followed when an assignor failed to appear for an EUO. Ms. Miller testified that, when an assignor fails to appear for an EUO, a paralegal notifies the assigned claim representative and the assigned attorney drafts and signs an affirmation attesting that they were the attorney assigned to conduct the EUO, that they were present, and they could not conduct the EUO because the assignor failed to appear. Ms. Marcy testified that, after a review of Defendant's file and the affirmations from the attorneys assigned to conduct the EUOs, she concluded that the assignor failed to appear. The court credits her testimony regarding the preparation and mailing of the scheduling letters [*2]for the April 11, 2013 and May 1, 2013 EUOs and finds that her testimony demonstrates that Defendant timely mailed the EUO requests.
This court, however, does not find that the witness had personal knowledge of the assignor's failures to appear based solely on her review of the file, the documents therein, and her knowledge regarding the office procedures (see Quality Psychological Servs., P.C. v Travelers Home & Mar. Ins. Co, 39 Misc 3 1490[A][2nd Dept 2013]; see also Alrof, Inc. as assignee of Jonathan Rosario v Safeco National Insurance Company, 39 Misc 3d 130[A][App Term 2nd Dept 2013).
Therefore, based upon the foregoing, judgment is awarded in favor of Plaintiff for $785.12 plus statutory interest, attorneys' fees as provided by the statute and the statutory costs and disbursements of this action.
This constitutes the Decision and Order of the Court.
Dated: July 31, 2017
Kings, New York
Mary V. Rosado, J.C.C.
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.
