Emc Health Prods., Inc. v Geico Ins. Co.

[*1] Emc Health Prods., Inc. v Geico Ins. Co. 2015 NY Slip Op 50800(U) Decided on May 19, 2015 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 May 19, 2015
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 2d, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : PESCE, P.J., ALIOTTA and SOLOMON, JJ.
&em;

EMC Health Products, Inc. as Assignee of DUVALL DANIELS, Respondent,

against

Geico Ins. Co., Appellant.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Richard G. Latin, J.), entered September 14, 2012. The order, insofar as appealed from, upon denying plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, made, in effect, CPLR 3212 (g) findings in plaintiff's favor, and denied defendant's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

ORDERED that the order, insofar as appealed from, 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 the action was premature, as plaintiff had failed to respond to requested verification. Insofar as is relevant to this appeal, the Civil Court, upon denying plaintiff's motion, made, in effect, CPLR 3212 (g) findings in plaintiff's favor, denied defendant's cross motion, and held that the only remaining issue for trial was whether plaintiff had responded to defendant's verification requests.

We find that defendant has failed to articulate a sufficient basis to strike the Civil Court's implicit CPLR 3212 (g) findings in plaintiff's favor (see EMC Health Prods., Inc. v Geico Ins. Co., 43 Misc 3d 139[A], 2014 NY Slip Op 50786[U] [App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2014]). Moreover, upon a review of the record, we agree with the Civil Court that there is a triable issue of fact as to whether plaintiff responded to defendant's verification requests (see Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557 [1980]).

Accordingly, the order, insofar as appealed from, is affirmed.

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

Decision Date: May 19, 2015