Professional Health Imaging, P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.

Annotate this Case
[*1] Professional Health Imaging, P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. 2016 NY Slip Op 51028(U) Decided on June 23, 2016 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 June 23, 2016
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 2d, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : PESCE, P.J., WESTON and ELLIOT, JJ.
2014-2136 K C

Professional Health Imaging, P.C., as Assignee of Latiesha Bryant, 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 (Katherine A. Levine, J.), entered July 22, 2014. The order granted defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and denied plaintiff's cross motion for summary judgment or, in the alternative, to strike defendant's answer and affirmative defenses, and to compel defendant to respond to discovery demands.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with $25 costs.

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 plaintiff had failed to appear for duly scheduled examinations under oath. Plaintiff cross-moved for summary judgment or, in the alternative, to strike defendant's answer and affirmative defenses, and to compel defendant to respond to discovery demands. Plaintiff appeals from an order of the Civil Court granting defendant's motion and denying plaintiff's cross motion.

For the reasons stated in Professional Health Imaging, P.C., as Assignee of Luis Lopez v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (__ Misc 3d ___, 2016 NY Slip Op _____ [appeal No. 2014-2016 K C], decided herewith), the order is affirmed.

Pesce, P.J., Weston and Elliot, JJ., concur.


Decision Date: June 23, 2016

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.