Opinion
No. 2020-641 K C
06-10-2022
SVP Med Supply, Inc. (B), as Assignee of Natasha Pacheco, Respondent, v. GEICO, Appellant.
Rivkin Radler, LLP (Stuart M. Bodoff of counsel) for appellant. The Rybak Firm, PLLC (Damin J. Toell of counsel.), for respondent.
Unpublished Opinion
Rivkin Radler, LLP (Stuart M. Bodoff of counsel) for appellant.
The Rybak Firm, PLLC (Damin J. Toell 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 (Consuelo Mallafre Melendez, J.), entered October 25, 2019. The order denied defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
ORDERED that the order is reversed, with $30 costs, and defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted.
In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, defendant appeals from an order of the Civil Court denying defendant's motion which had sought summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that plaintiff failed to appear for duly scheduled examinations under oath (EUOs).
The affidavit submitted by defendant established that the EUO scheduling letters and the denial of claim forms had been timely mailed in accordance with defendant's standard office practices and procedures (see St. Vincent's Hosp. of Richmond v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 50 A.D.3d 1123 [2008]). In addition, the affirmation submitted by defendant's attorney, who was present in her office to conduct the EUO of plaintiff on the scheduled dates, was sufficient to establish that plaintiff had failed to appear on those dates (see Hertz Corp. v Active Care Med. Supply Corp., 124 A.D.3d 411 [2015]; NL Quality Med., P.C. v GEICO Ins. Co., 68 Misc.3d 131 [A], 2020 NY Slip Op 50997[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2020]; cf. Satya Drug Corp. v Global Liberty Ins. Co. of NY, 65 Misc.3d 127 [A], 2019 NY Slip Op 51505[U] [App Term, 1st Dept 2019]). As a result, defendant demonstrated its prima facie entitlement to summary judgment (see Interboro Ins. Co. v Clennon, 113 A.D.3d 596, 597 [2014]). Plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact in opposition to defendant's motion.
Accordingly, the order is reversed and defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted.
ALIOTTA, P.J., TOUSSAINT and GOLIA, JJ., concur.