From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

N.Y. Diagnostic Med. Care, P.C. v. Geico Gen. Ins. Co.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Dept., 2, 11 & 13 Judicial Dist.
Dec 17, 2014
7 N.Y.S.3d 243 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014)

Opinion

No. 2012–1299 K C.

12-17-2014

NEW YORK DIAGNOSTIC MEDICAL CARE, P.C. as Assignee of Kenneth Smith, Appellant, v. GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Respondent.


Opinion

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Reginald A. Boddie, J.), entered April 26, 2012. The order denied plaintiff's motion for summary judgment.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with $25 costs.

In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Civil Court which denied plaintiff's motion for summary judgment.

A no-fault provider establishes its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting evidence, in admissible form, that claim forms were mailed to the defendant insurer, and that the insurer failed to pay or deny those claims within the prescribed 30–day period or issued timely denial of claim forms that were conclusory, vague or without merit as a matter of law (see Viviane Etienne Med. Care, P.C. v. Country–Wide Ins. Co., 114 AD3d 33 [2013] ; Ave T MPC Corp. v. Auto One Ins. Co., 32 Misc.3d 128[A], 2011 N.Y. Slip Op 51292[U] [App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2011] ; see also Westchester Med. Ctr. v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 78 AD3d 1168 [2010] ).

While the supporting affidavit by plaintiff's employee established that plaintiff had mailed the claim forms in question to defendant, and that defendant had failed to pay those claims within the requisite 30–day period, the affidavit failed to demonstrate that defendant had either failed to deny the claims within the requisite 30–day period or that defendant had issued timely denial of claim forms which were conclusory, vague or without merit as a matter of law. As plaintiff failed to meet its initial burden of establishing its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, plaintiff's motion for summary judgment was properly denied (see Viviane Etienne Med. Care, P.C. v. Country–Wide Ins. Co., 114 AD3d 33 ).

Accordingly, the order is affirmed.

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


Summaries of

N.Y. Diagnostic Med. Care, P.C. v. Geico Gen. Ins. Co.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Dept., 2, 11 & 13 Judicial Dist.
Dec 17, 2014
7 N.Y.S.3d 243 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014)
Case details for

N.Y. Diagnostic Med. Care, P.C. v. Geico Gen. Ins. Co.

Case Details

Full title:NEW YORK DIAGNOSTIC MEDICAL CARE, P.C. as Assignee of Kenneth Smith…

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Dept., 2, 11 & 13 Judicial Dist.

Date published: Dec 17, 2014

Citations

7 N.Y.S.3d 243 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014)