TAM Med. Supply Corp. v. 21st Century Ins. Co.

Full title: TAM Medical Supply Corp., as Assignee of Martinez, Wilman, Appellant, v…

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

Date published: Sep 22, 2017

2017 N.Y. Slip Op. 51238 (N.Y. App. Term 2017)

Opinion

2014-1585 Q C

09-22-2017

TAM Medical Supply Corp., as Assignee of Martinez, Wilman, Appellant, v. 21st Century Insurance Company, Respondent.

The Rybak Firm, PLLC (Damin J. Toell, Esq.), for appellant. Law Offices of Bryan M. Rothenberg (Sharon A. Brennan, Esq.), for respondent.

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

PRESENT: :

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

Law Offices of Bryan M. Rothenberg (Sharon A. Brennan, Esq.), for respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Richard G. Latin, J.), entered June 9, 2014. The order, insofar as appealed from, granted the branch of defendant's motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the second cause of action and, upon denying the branch of defendant's motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the first cause of action, found, in effect pursuant to CPLR 3212 (g), that defendant had established proper mailing of the denial of the claim underlying that cause of action.

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, defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground of lack of medical necessity. Plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Civil Court as granted the branch of defendant's motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the second cause of action and, upon denying the branch of defendant's motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the first cause of action, found, in effect pursuant to CPLR 3212 (g), that defendant had established proper mailing of the denial of claim form underlying that cause of action.

Contrary to plaintiff's sole argument on appeal, the proof submitted by defendant in support of its motion was sufficient to establish that the denial of claim forms at issue had been properly mailed (see St. Vincent's Hosp. of Richmond v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 50 AD3d 1123 [2008]).

Accordingly, the order, insofar as appealed from, is affirmed.

PESCE, P.J., ALIOTTA and SOLOMON, JJ., concur. ENTER: Paul Kenny Chief Clerk Decision Date: September 22, 2017