Tam Med. Supply Corp. v Tri State Consumers Ins. Co.

Annotate this Case
[*1] Tam Med. Supply Corp. v Tri State Consumers Ins. Co. 2016 NY Slip Op 51350(U) Decided on September 19, 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 September 19, 2016
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 2d, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : PESCE, P.J., ALIOTTA and SOLOMON, JJ.
2013-2363 Q C

TAM Medical Supply Corp., as Assignee of YNILCY BASCUMBE, Appellant,

against

Tri State Consumers Ins. Co., Respondent.

Appeals from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Larry Love, J.), entered October 1, 2013. 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 contention, the affirmation defendant submitted from the doctor who was to perform an independent medical examination (IME) of plaintiff's assignor was sufficient to establish that plaintiff's assignor had failed to appear for the scheduled IMEs (see Stephen Fogel Psychological, P.C. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 35 AD3d 720 [2006]; Quality Psychological Servs., P.C. v Interboro Mut. Indem. Ins. Co., 36 Misc 3d 146[A], 2012 NY Slip Op 51628[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2012]). In light of the foregoing, we need not reach plaintiff's contentions with respect to its motion for summary judgment or an alternate defense asserted by defendant.

Accordingly, the order is affirmed.

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


Decision Date: September 19, 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.