Alleviation Med. Servs., P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.

[*1] Alleviation Med. Servs., P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. 2016 NY Slip Op 50922(U) Decided on June 6, 2016 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 June 6, 2016
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 2d, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : PESCE, P.J., ALIOTTA and SOLOMON, JJ.
2013-2132 K C

Alleviation Medical Services, P.C., as Assignee of KADEEM ANDERSON, Appellant,

against

State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co., Respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Genine D. Edwards, J.), entered June 6, 2013. The order granted defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

ORDERED that the order is reversed, with $30 costs, and defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is denied.

In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Civil Court which granted defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

While defendant submitted an affirmation from the doctor who was scheduled to perform the independent medical examinations (IMEs), the doctor did not establish that he possessed personal knowledge of the nonappearance of plaintiff's assignor for the IMEs. Therefore, defendant failed to establish its entitlement, as a matter of law, to judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that plaintiff's assignor had failed to appear for IMEs (see Bright Med. Supply Co. v IDS Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 40 Misc 3d 130[A], 2013 NY Slip Op 51123[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2013]; Alrof, Inc. v Safeco Natl. Ins. Co., 39 Misc 3d 130[A], 2013 NY Slip Op 50458[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2013]). In addition, as each IME scheduling letter was mailed to plaintiff's assignor at a different address, there is also an issue fact as to whether plaintiff's assignor received notice of both scheduled IMEs.

Accordingly, the order is reversed and defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is denied.

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

Decision Date: June 06, 2016