Alleviation Med. Servs., P.C. v Citiwide Auto Leasing

Annotate this Case
[*1] Alleviation Med. Servs., P.C. v Citiwide Auto Leasing 2015 NY Slip Op 50803(U) Decided on May 19, 2015 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 May 19, 2015
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 2d, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : PESCE, P.J., ALIOTTA and SOLOMON, JJ.
2012-2723 K C

Alleviation Medical Services, P.C. as Assignee of DELORES FEARON, Appellant,

against

Citiwide Auto Leasing, Respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Harriet L. Thompson, J.), entered September 28, 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 appeals from an order of the Civil Court which denied plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and granted defendant's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Contrary to plaintiff's sole argument on appeal with respect to the merits of defendant's cross motion, the affidavit submitted by defendant established that the denial of claim form 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]). Therefore, we need not consider plaintiff's contention that plaintiff demonstrated its prima facie entitlement to summary judgment. Plaintiff's remaining contention lacks merit.

Accordingly, the order is affirmed.

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


Decision Date: May 19, 2015

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.