Opinion
No. 2019-1380 K C
08-05-2022
PFJ Medical Care, P.C., as Assignee of Ferril, Gabriel, Appellant, v. Nationwide Ins., Respondent.
The Rybak Firm, PLLC (Damin J. Toell of counsel), for appellant. Hollander Legal Group, P.C. (Allan Hollander of counsel), for respondent.
Unpublished Opinion
The Rybak Firm, PLLC (Damin J. Toell of counsel), for appellant.
Hollander Legal Group, P.C. (Allan Hollander of counsel), for respondent.
PRESENT:: THOMAS P. ALIOTTA, P.J., WAVNY TOUSSAINT, DONNA-MARIE E. GOLIA, JJ
Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Robin Kelly Sheares, J.), entered June 12, 2019. The order, insofar as appealed from, granted the branches of defendant's motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the first through seventh and tenth causes of action, and denied plaintiff's cross motion for summary judgment.
ORDERED that the order, insofar as appealed from, is affirmed, with $25 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 granted the branches of defendant's motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the first through seventh and tenth causes of action, and denied plaintiff's cross motion for summary judgment.
To the extent plaintiff contends that defendant was not entitled to summary judgment dismissing the first through seventh and tenth causes of action, for the reasons stated in ACH Chiropractic, P.C., as Assignee of Ferril, Gabriel J. v Nationwide Ins. (__Misc.3d __, 2022 NY Slip Op - [appeal No. 2019-1357 K C], decided herewith), plaintiff's contentions lack merit.
With respect to plaintiff's argument that it was entitled to summary judgment upon the eighth and ninth causes of action, the affidavit submitted by plaintiff's owner was insufficient to give rise to a presumption that those claim forms had been timely mailed to, and received by, defendant (see Residential Holding Corp. v Scottsdale Ins. Co., 286 A.D.2d 679 [2001]). As a result, the branches of plaintiff's cross motion seeking summary judgment on the eighth and ninth causes of action were properly denied.
Accordingly, the the order, insofar as appealed from, is affirmed.
ALIOTTA, P.J., TOUSSAINT and GOLIA, JJ., concur.