Opinion
No. 2022-688 K C
02-24-2023
New York Manual, P.T., P.C., as Assignee of Martinez, Joaquin, Appellant, v. Nationwide Affinity Insurance Company of America, Respondent.
The Rybak Firm, PLLC (Damin J. Toell and Richard Rozhik of counsel), for appellant. The Law Office of Kevin J. Philbin (Lawrence Wolkow of counsel), for respondent.
Unpublished Opinion
MOTION DECISION
The Rybak Firm, PLLC (Damin J. Toell and Richard Rozhik of counsel), for appellant.
The Law Office of Kevin J. Philbin (Lawrence Wolkow of counsel), for respondent.
PRESENT:: WAVNY TOUSSAINT, P.J., CHEREÉ A. BUGGS, MARINA CORA MUNDY, JJ
Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Carolyn Walker-Diallo, J.), entered September 15, 2020. The order granted defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and denied plaintiff's cross 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 granted defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that plaintiff failed to provide requested verification, and denied plaintiff's cross motion for summary judgment.
Defendant demonstrated, prima facie, that it had timely mailed initial and follow-up requests for verification (see St. Vincent's Hosp. of Richmond v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 50 A.D.3d 1123 [2008]) and that it had not received all of the requested verification. In opposition, plaintiff's owner merely stated that he had mailed the requested verification "to the extent such response was proper and in [his] possession." Thus, contrary to plaintiff's contentions on appeal, plaintiff failed to establish a triable issue of fact by demonstrating that it had provided the requested verification or had set forth a reasonable justification for the failure to comply with defendant's verification requests (see 11 NYCRR 65-3.8 [b] [3]). Consequently, we find no basis to disturb the order (see Burke Physical Therapy, P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 75 Misc.3d 143 [A], 2022 NY Slip Op 50623[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2022]; CPM Med Supply, Inc. v State Farm Fire & Cas. Ins. Co., 63 Misc.3d 140 [A], 2019 NY Slip Op 50576[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2019]).
Accordingly, the order is affirmed.
TOUSSAINT, P.J., BUGGS and MUNDY, JJ., concur.