November 30, 2018

TAM Med. Supply Corp. v Hereford Ins. Co. (2018 NY Slip Op 51779(U))

https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/tam-med-supply-corp-v-hereford-ins-co-2018-ny-slip-op-51779u/

Court: Appellate Term, Second Department
Decided: November 30, 2018
Citation: 2018 NY Slip Op 51779(U)
Posture: Summary judgment
Outcome: Insurer prevailed
Issues: Policy issues

Cite as

TAM Med. Supply Corp. v Hereford Ins. Co., 2018 NY Slip Op 51779(U) (App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2018)

Posture, outcome, issues and treatment by other decisions are Beynenson Law’s classification. Treatment labels are assigned by a language model reading the citing decision; negative and appeal-history labels are checked by a second reader.

Summary

Editorial summary by Beynenson Law, not part of the court’s decision.

The insurer's record-search affidavits established that no relevant policy covered the vehicle on the accident date. In the provider's action for assigned no-fault benefits, three insurer employees described their searches and reported that no relevant policy was in effect. Their affidavits demonstrated prima facie that the claim did not arise from a covered incident under Central Gen. Hosp. v Chubb Group of Ins. Cos. The provider raised no triable factual issue. The Appellate Term, Second Department, affirmed the denial of the provider's summary judgment motion and the grant of the insurer's cross motion dismissing the complaint.

Reported in New York Official Reports at TAM Med. Supply Corp. v Hereford Ins. Co. (2018 NY Slip Op 51779(U))

[*1]

TAM Med. Supply Corp. v Hereford Ins. Co.

2018 NY Slip Op 51779(U)

Decided on November 30, 2018

Appellate Term, Second Department

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on November 30, 2018

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

PRESENT: : MICHAEL L. PESCE, P.J., THOMAS P. ALIOTTA, DAVID ELLIOT, JJ
2016-1261 K C

TAM Medical Supply Corp., as Assignee of Cadet, Pierre, Appellant,
against
Hereford Insurance Co., Respondent.

The Rybak Firm, PLLC (Damin J. Toell of counsel), for appellant. Law Offices of Rubin & Nazarian (Michael Tomforde of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Steven Z. Mostofsky, J.), entered March 16, 2016. The order denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and granted defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with $25 costs.

In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Civil Court which denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and granted defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that defendant did not provide insurance coverage for the vehicle in question on the date of the accident at issue.

In support of its cross motion, defendant submitted affidavits by three employees who described the details of record searches they had performed and stated that their searches had revealed that there was no relevant Hereford Insurance Company policy in effect on the date of the accident in question. We find that defendant’s affidavits were sufficient to demonstrate, prima facie, that plaintiff’s claim did not arise out of a covered incident (see Central Gen. Hosp. v Chubb Group of Ins. Cos., 90 NY2d 195, 199 [1997]). As plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact, the Civil Court properly granted defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint (see Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557 [1980]).

Accordingly, the order is affirmed.

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

ENTER:
Paul Kenny
Chief Clerk
Decision Date: November 30, 2018

Similar decisions

Compas Med., P.C. v Hereford Ins. Co. (2017 NY Slip Op 51083(U))The insurer's record-search affidavit established that no relevant policy was in effect on the accident date, and the provider raised no factual issue.
TAM Med. Supply Corp. v Omni Indem. Co. (2017 NY Slip Op 51017(U))The insurer's summary judgment dismissing the complaint was affirmed on its defense that it had issued no policy covering the accident vehicle.
Tam Med. Supply Corp. v 21st Century Ins. Co. (2016 NY Slip Op 50402(U))The insurer failed to establish a timely denial preserving policy-procurement fraud or prove that the injuries arose outside an insured incident.
Tam Med. Supply Corp. v Fiduciary Ins. Co. of Am. (2016 NY Slip Op 51352(U))The insurer established that it first learned of the accident through an NF-2 form submitted more than 30 days after the accident.
TAM Med. Supply Corp. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (2016 NY Slip Op 51327(U))The insurer's motion for summary judgment dismissing the provider's assigned no-fault claims was granted and affirmed on appeal.