Opinion
No. 2011–1286 K C.
2012-08-31
ATLANTIC RADIOLOGY IMAGING, P.C. as Assignee of Emanuel Malayev, Respondent, v. NY CENTRAL MUTUAL FIRE INS. CO., Appellant.
Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Carolyn E. Wade, J.), entered February 17, 2011. The order denied defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
Present: PESCE, P.J., RIOS and ALIOTTA, JJ.
ORDERED that the order is reversed, without 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.
In support of its motion, defendant submitted an affidavit from an employee of the company that had been retained by defendant to schedule independent medical examinations (IMEs). The affidavit established that the IME scheduling letters had been timely mailed pursuant to the company's standard office practices and procedures ( see St. Vincent's Hosp. of Richmond v. Government Empls. Ins. Co., 50 AD3d 1123 [2008];Delta Diagnostic Radiology, P.C. v. Chubb Group of Ins., 17 Misc.3d 16 [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2007] ). Defendant also submitted affirmations from the licensed healthcare professionals who were to perform the IMEs which established that plaintiff's assignor had failed to appear for the duly scheduled IMEs ( see Stephen Fogel Psychological, P.C. v. Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 35 AD3d 720 [2006] ). In addition, an affidavit executed by defendant's employee demonstrated that the denial of claim forms had been timely mailed ( see St. Vincent's Hosp. of Richmond, 50 AD3d 1123;Delta Diagnostic Radiology, P.C ., 17 Misc.3d 16). Since the appearance of an assignor at a duly scheduled IME is a condition precedent to the insurer's liability on the policy ( see Insurance Department Regulations [11 NYCRR] § 65–1.1; Stephen Fogel Psychological, P.C., 35 AD3d at 722), defendant's motion for summary judgment should have been granted.
Accordingly, the order is reversed and defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted.