Longevity Med. Supply, Inc. v Praetorian Ins. Co.

[*1] Longevity Med. Supply, Inc. v Praetorian Ins. Co. 2016 NY Slip Op 50924(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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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.
2013-2143 K C

Longevity Medical Supply, Inc., as Assignee of ROSE SHERLOCK, Respondent,

against

Praetorian Insurance Company, Appellant.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Genine D. Edwards, J.), entered July 25, 2013. The order, insofar as appealed from and as limited by the brief, denied defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

ORDERED that the order, insofar as appealed from, is reversed, with $30 costs, and defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted.

In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that it had timely and properly denied the claims at issue based on the failure of plaintiff's assignor to appear for duly scheduled independent medical examinations (IMEs). The Civil Court denied defendant's motion but, in effect, limited the issues for trial, pursuant to CPLR 3212 (g), to whether plaintiff's assignor had failed to appear for duly scheduled IMEs. As limited by its brief, defendant appeals from so much of the order as denied its motion.

In support of its motion, defendant submitted affidavits from the doctor and chiropractor who were to perform the IMEs, which affidavits were sufficient to establish that plaintiff's assignor had failed to appear for duly scheduled IMEs (see Stephen Fogel Psychological, P.C. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 35 AD3d 720 [2006]). In view of the foregoing, and as plaintiff has not challenged the Civil Court's finding, in effect, that defendant is otherwise entitled to judgment, the order, insofar as appealed from, is reversed and defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted.

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

Decision Date: June 06, 2016