TAM Med. Supply Corp. v 21st Century Ins. Co.

[*1] TAM Med. Supply Corp. v 21st Century Ins. Co. 2017 NY Slip Op 51238(U) Decided on September 22, 2017 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 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
2014-1585 Q C

TAM Medical Supply Corp., as Assignee of Martinez, Wilman, Appellant,

against

21st Century Insurance Company, Respondent.

The Rybak Firm, PLLC (Damin J. Toell, Esq.), for appellant. Law Offices of Bryan M. Rothenberg (Sharon A. Brennan, Esq.), for respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Richard G. Latin, J.), entered June 9, 2014. The order, insofar as appealed from, granted the branch of defendant's motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the second cause of action and, upon denying the branch of defendant's motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the first cause of action, found, in effect pursuant to CPLR 3212 (g), that defendant had established proper mailing of the denial of the claim underlying that cause of action.

ORDERED that the order, insofar as appealed from, 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 of lack of medical necessity. Plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Civil Court as granted the branch of defendant's motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the second cause of action and, upon denying the branch of defendant's motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the first cause of action, found, in effect pursuant to CPLR 3212 (g), that defendant had established proper mailing of the denial of claim form underlying that cause of action.

Contrary to plaintiff's sole argument on appeal, the proof submitted by defendant in support of its motion was sufficient to establish that the denial of claim forms at issue had been properly mailed (see St. Vincent's Hosp. of Richmond v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 50 AD3d 1123 [2008]).

Accordingly, the order, insofar as appealed from, is affirmed.

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

ENTER:
Paul Kenny
Chief Clerk
Decision Date: September 22, 2017