Chiroworks Chiropractic, P.C. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co.

Annotate this Case
[*1] Chiroworks Chiropractic, P.C. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. 2017 NY Slip Op 51159(U) Decided on September 8, 2017 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 8, 2017
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 2d, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : MICHAEL L. PESCE, P.J., THOMAS P. ALIOTTA, MARTIN M. SOLOMON, JJ
2014-2147 Q C

Chiroworks Chiropractic, P.C., as Assignee of Oshun Onilu, Appellant,

against

New York Central Mutual Fire Ins. Co., Respondent.

Gary Tsirelman, P.C. (Douglas Mace, Esq.), for appellant. Nightingale Law, P.C. (Michael S. Nightingale, Esq.), for respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Ulysses Bernard Leverett, J.), entered July 23, 2014. The order granted defendant's 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 granted defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

There is no merit to plaintiff's arguments on appeal regarding the sufficiency of the proof submitted by defendant to establish that plaintiff's assignor had failed to appear for independent medical examinations (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]). Plaintiff's remaining contention lacks merit.

Accordingly, the order is affirmed.

PESCE, P.J., ALIOTTA and SOLOMON, JJ., concur.


Paul Kenny
Chief Clerk
Decision Date: September 08, 2017

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.