True-Align Chiropractic Care, P.C. v Country Wide Ins. Co.

[*1] True-Align Chiropractic Care, P.C. v Country Wide Ins. Co. 2014 NY Slip Op 51821(U) Decided on December 17, 2014 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 December 17, 2014
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 2d, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : PESCE, P.J., ALIOTTA and SOLOMON, JJ.
2012-1596 K C

True-Align Chiropractic Care, P.C. as Assignee of JOSE REYES, Appellant,

against

Country Wide Insurance Company, Respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Devin P. Cohen, J.), entered March 26, 2012. 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 grounds that plaintiff had failed to respond to defendant's verification requests and that plaintiff's assignor had failed to appear for duly scheduled independent medical examinations (IMEs). The Civil Court denied plaintiff's motion and granted defendant's cross motion.

Plaintiff's arguments on appeal lack merit. The affidavit submitted by defendant sufficiently established the timely and proper mailing of the verification requests and the denial of claim forms (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]). Furthermore, contrary to plaintiff's argument with respect to its first cause of action, defendant demonstrated that it had not received the verification requested, and plaintiff did not show that the requested verification had been provided to defendant. Finally, contrary to plaintiff's argument with respect to the remaining causes of action, defendant established that plaintiff's assignor had failed to appear for the scheduled IMEs (see Quality Psychological Servs., P.C. v Interboro Mut. Indem. Ins. Co., 36 Misc 3d 146[A], 2012 NY Slip Op 51628[U] [App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2012]).

Accordingly, the order is affirmed.

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

Decision Date: December 17, 2014