TAM Med. Supply Corp. v. N.Y. Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co.

Full title: TAM Medical Supply Corp., as Assignee of Deleon, Socorro, 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. 51248 (N.Y. App. Term 2017)

66 N.Y.S.3d 655

Opinion

2014-1899 K C

09-22-2017

TAM Medical Supply Corp., as Assignee of Deleon, Socorro, Appellant, v. New York Central Mutual Fire Insurance Company, Respondent.

The Rybak Firm, PLLC (Damin J. Toell, Esq.), for appellant. Gullo & Associates, LLP (Cristina Corollo, 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.

Gullo & Associates, LLP (Cristina Corollo, Esq.), for respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Carolyn E. Wade, J.), entered June 16, 2014. The order granted 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 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 summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the action was premature because plaintiff had failed to provide requested verification.

Contrary to plaintiff's contentions, defendant's proof was sufficient to demonstrate that it had properly mailed the initial and follow-up verification requests (see St. Vincent's Hosp. of Richmond v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 50 AD3d 1123 [2008]) and that it had not received the requested verification, and, thus, that the action is premature (see Central Suffolk Hosp. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 24 AD3d 492 [2005]). However, as plaintiff further argues, the affidavit submitted by plaintiff in opposition to defendant's motion was sufficient to give rise to a presumption that the requested verification had been mailed to, and received by, defendant (see St. Vincent's Hosp. of Richmond, 50 AD3d 1123). In light of the foregoing, there is a triable issue of fact as to whether the action is premature (see Compas Med., P.C. v Praetorian Ins. Co., 49 Misc 3d 152[A], 2015 NY Slip Op 51776[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2015]).

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

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