From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Masigla v. Ameriprise Auto & Home

SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 2d, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
Dec 15, 2017
58 Misc. 3d 131 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017)

Opinion

2014–2083 Q C

12-15-2017

Maria S. MASIGLA, P.T., as Assignee of Edouard, Nadia, Appellant, v. AMERIPRISE AUTO & HOME, Respondent.

The Rybak Firm, PLLC (Damin J. Toell, Esq.), for appellant. Bruno, Gerbino & Soriano, LLP (Mitchell L. Kaufman, Esq.), for respondent.


The Rybak Firm, PLLC (Damin J. Toell, Esq.), for appellant.

Bruno, Gerbino & Soriano, LLP (Mitchell L. Kaufman, Esq.), for respondent.

PRESENT: MICHAEL L. PESCE, P.J., THOMAS P. ALIOTTA, MARTIN M. SOLOMON, JJ

ORDERED that the order, insofar as appealed from, is modified by providing that the branches of defendant's cross motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the first, third and fourth causes of action are denied; as so modified, the order, insofar as appealed from, is affirmed, without costs.

In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Civil Court as denied the branches of plaintiff's motion seeking summary judgment upon the first, third and fourth causes of action, and granted the branches of defendant's cross motion seeking summary judgment dismissing those causes of action on the ground that plaintiff had failed to appear for duly scheduled examinations under oath (EUO).

For the reasons stated in Renelique v. Utica Mut. Ins. Co. (53 Misc 3d 141[A], 2016 NY Slip Op 51530[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2016] ), the branches of defendant's cross motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the first, third and fourth causes of action should not have been granted based on plaintiff's failure to appear for EUOs. However, the branches of plaintiff's motion seeking summary judgment upon those causes of action were properly denied, as plaintiff failed to establish that the additional ground upon which the claims at issue had been denied lacks 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, insofar as appealed from, is modified by providing that the branches of defendant's cross motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the first, third and fourth causes of action are denied.

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


Summaries of

Masigla v. Ameriprise Auto & Home

SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 2d, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
Dec 15, 2017
58 Misc. 3d 131 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017)
Case details for

Masigla v. Ameriprise Auto & Home

Case Details

Full title:Maria S. Masigla, P.T., as Assignee of Edouard, Nadia, Appellant, v…

Court:SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 2d, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS

Date published: Dec 15, 2017

Citations

58 Misc. 3d 131 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017)
2017 N.Y. Slip Op. 51757
92 N.Y.S.3d 704

Citing Cases

People v. Martinez

In opposition, defendant initially posits that the People's motion for leave to reargue is merely an attempt…