Opinion
2019-521 K C
05-14-2021
TOTAL CHIROPRACTIC, P.C., as Assignee of Sanders, Leander, Appellant, v. INTEGON NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Respondent.
The Rybak Firm, PLLC (Damin J. Toell of counsel), for appellant. Law Offices of Moira Doherty, P.C. (Maureen Knodel of counsel), for respondent.
The Rybak Firm, PLLC (Damin J. Toell of counsel), for appellant.
Law Offices of Moira Doherty, P.C. (Maureen Knodel of counsel), for respondent.
PRESENT: THOMAS P. ALIOTTA, P.J., WAVNY TOUSSAINT, DONNA-MARIE E. GOLIA, JJ
ORDERED that the order is modified by providing that defendant's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is denied; as so modified, the order is affirmed, without costs.
In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Civil Court denying its motion for summary judgment and granting defendant's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
Plaintiff correctly argues on appeal that the affidavit submitted by defendant in support of its cross motion did not sufficiently set forth a standard office practice or procedure that would ensure that the letters scheduling independent medical examinations (IMEs) were properly addressed and mailed (see St. Vincent's Hosp. of Richmond v Government Empls. Ins. Co. , 50 AD3d 1123 [2008] ). As a result, defendant failed to demonstrate that the IMEs were properly scheduled and, thus, that plaintiff's assignor failed to appear at duly scheduled IMEs (see Stephen Fogel Psychological, P.C. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co. , 35 AD3d 720, 722 [2006] ; see also Neptune Med. Care, P.C. v Praetorian Ins. Co. , 64 Misc 3d 132[A], 2019 NY Slip Op 51052[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2019]). Consequently, defendant is not entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
However, contrary to plaintiff's contention, plaintiff failed to demonstrate its prima facie entitlement to summary judgment, as the affidavit plaintiff submitted in support of its motion failed to establish that the claim at issue had not been timely denied (see Viviane Etienne Med. Care, P.C. v Country-Wide Ins. Co. , 25 NY3d 498 [2015] ), or that defendant had issued a timely denial of claim form that was conclusory, vague or without merit as a matter of law (see Westchester Med. Ctr. v Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. , 78 AD3d 1168 [2010] ; Ave T MPC Corp. v Auto One Ins. Co. , 32 Misc 3d 128[A], 2011 NY Slip Op 51292[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2011]).
Accordingly, the order is modified by providing that defendant's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is denied.
ALIOTTA, P.J., TOUSSAINT and GOLIA, JJ., concur.