From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

GNK Med. Supply, Inc. v. Tri-State Consumer Ins. Co.

SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, FIRST DEPARTMENT
Nov 30, 2012
37 Misc. 3d 138 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012)

Opinion

No. 570582/12.

2012-11-30

GNK MEDICAL SUPPLY, INC., a/a/o Oswald Tucker, Plaintiff–Respondent, v. TRI–STATE CONSUMER INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant–Appellant.


Defendant appeals from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County (Manuel J. Mendez, J.), entered February 25, 2011, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
Present: LOWE, III, P.J., SHULMAN, HUNTER, JR., JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Order (Manuel J. Mendez, J.), entered February 25, 2011, reversed, with $10 costs, motion granted and complaint dismissed. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.

In this action to recover first-party no-fault benefits, the evidentiary proof submitted by defendant-insurer was sufficient to establish, prima facie, that its initial and follow-up verification letters were timely and properly mailed to the plaintiff medical provider's attorney ( see Nassau Ins. Co. v. Murray, 46 N.Y.2d 828, 829 [1978];LMK Psychological Servs., P.C. v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. ., 30 A.D.3d 727, 728 [2006];Badio v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 12 A.D.3d 229 [2004] ), as authorized by plaintiff's counsel's prior correspondence to defendant ( see St. Vincent's Hosp. of Richmond v. American Tr. Ins. Co., 299 A.D.2d 338, 339–340 [2002];New York Hosp. Med. Ctr. of Queens v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 293 A.D.2d 588, 590–591 [2002] ). It being undisputed that plaintiff failed to respond to these verification requests, defendant established entitlement to summary judgment dismissing the claim as premature ( see St. Vincent Med. Care, P.C. v. Country Wide Ins. Co., 80 A.D.3d 599, 600 [2011] ).

In opposition, plaintiff's attorney's conclusory denial of receipt of the verification letters was insufficient to raise a triable issue ( see Nassau Ins. Co. v. Murray, 46 N.Y.2d 828, 829–830 [1978];Pardo v. Central Coop. Ins. Co., 223 A.D.2d 832, 833 [1996] ). We also reject plaintiff's claim that 11 NYCRR 65–3.6(b) required defendant to issue a delay letter to both plaintiff and its attorney, since that requirement applies only in circumstances, not here present, where information is sought from a party other than the applicant ( see Doshi Diagnostic Imaging Servs. v. State Farm Ins. Co., 16 Misc.3d 42 [2007] ).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.


Summaries of

GNK Med. Supply, Inc. v. Tri-State Consumer Ins. Co.

SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, FIRST DEPARTMENT
Nov 30, 2012
37 Misc. 3d 138 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012)
Case details for

GNK Med. Supply, Inc. v. Tri-State Consumer Ins. Co.

Case Details

Full title:GNK Medical Supply, Inc., a/a/o Oswald Tucker, Plaintiff-Respondent, v…

Court:SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, FIRST DEPARTMENT

Date published: Nov 30, 2012

Citations

37 Misc. 3d 138 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012)
2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 52195
964 N.Y.S.2d 59

Citing Cases

Orthoplus Prods, Inc. v. Glob. Liberty Ins. Co.

Even accepting plaintiff's assertion that it submitted certain verification documents to defendant, the…

Am. Transit Ins. Co. v. PDA N.Y. Chiropractic, P.C.

It is manifest that an insurer is not required to pay or deny a claim upon receipt of a partial response to a…