From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Tam Med. Supply Corp. v. Lancer Ins. Co.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Dept., 2, 11 And 13 Judicial Dist.
Jul 27, 2015
2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 51126 (N.Y. App. Div. 2015)

Opinion

No. 2013–1240 Q C.

07-27-2015

TAM MEDICAL SUPPLY CORP. as Assignee of Magalie Damis, Appellant, v. LANCER INSURANCE CO., Respondent.


Opinion

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (William A. Viscovich, J.), entered April 30, 2013. The order granted defendant's motion for, in effect, summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

ORDERED that the order is reversed, with $30 costs, and defendant's motion for, in effect, summary judgment dismissing the complaint is denied.

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, in effect, summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the action was premature because plaintiff had not provided verification as requested by defendant.

Since a claim need not be paid or denied until all demanded verification with respect thereto is provided (see Westchester County Med. Ctr. v. New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 262 A.D.2d 553, 554 1999 ), any action to recover payment is premature when the provider has failed to respond to a request for verification (see Central Suffolk Hosp. v. New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 24 AD3d 492, 493 2005 ). In support of its motion, defendant demonstrated 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 AD3d 1123 2008; Delta Diagnostic Radiology, P.C. v. Chubb Group of Ins., 17 Misc.3d 16 [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2007] ). However, upon a review of the record, we find that defendant did not demonstrate, prima facie, that it had not received the requested verification. Consequently, defendant is not entitled to summary judgment (see Zuckerman v. City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557 1980 ).

In view of the foregoing, we need not reach defendant's remaining contention.

Accordingly, the order is reversed and defendant's motion for, in effect, summary judgment dismissing the complaint is denied.

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


Summaries of

Tam Med. Supply Corp. v. Lancer Ins. Co.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Dept., 2, 11 And 13 Judicial Dist.
Jul 27, 2015
2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 51126 (N.Y. App. Div. 2015)
Case details for

Tam Med. Supply Corp. v. Lancer Ins. Co.

Case Details

Full title:TAM MEDICAL SUPPLY CORP. as Assignee of Magalie Damis, Appellant, v…

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

Date published: Jul 27, 2015

Citations

2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 51126 (N.Y. App. Div. 2015)
20 N.Y.S.3d 294
2015 WL 4604444