Ema Acupuncture, P.C. v Citiwide Auto Leasing

Annotate this Case
[*1] Ema Acupuncture, P.C. v Citiwide Auto Leasing 2017 NY Slip Op 51234(U) Decided on September 22, 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 22, 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
2014-1097 K C

EMA Acupuncture, P.C., as Assignee of Roque Alfredo, Respondent,

against

Citiwide Auto Leasing, Appellant.

Miller, Leiby & Associates, P.C. (Stacia Ury, Esq.), for appellant. Law Offices of Melissa Betancourt, P.C. (Melissa Betancourt, Esq.), for respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Carolyn E. Wade, J.), entered April 3, 2014. The order denied 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 granted.

In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, defendant appeals from an order of the Civil Court which denied defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the action was premature because plaintiff had failed to provide requested verification.

Defendant demonstrated that it had timely mailed initial and follow-up requests for verification (see St. Vincent's Hosp. of Richmond v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 50 AD3d 1123 [2008]) and that it had not received the requested verification. Thus, defendant demonstrated, prima facie, that the complaint is premature (see Central Suffolk Hosp. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins.


Co., 24 AD3d 492, 493 [2005]). As plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact in opposition to defendant's motion, the motion should have been granted.

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

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


ENTER:
Paul Kenny
Chief Clerk
Decision Date: September 22, 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.