December 19, 2017
Charles Deng Acupuncture, P.C. v Unitrin Auto & Home Ins. Co. (2017 NY Slip Op 51834(U))
https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/charles-deng-acupuncture-p-c-v-unitrin-auto-home-ins-co-2017-ny-slip-op51834u/
- Decided
- December 19, 2017
- Citation
- 2017 NY Slip Op 51834(U) · 58 Misc 3d 138(A)
- Posture
- Summary judgment
- Outcome
- Insurer prevailed
- Legal questions
- Proof of mailing · No-show defense: insurer's proof (see the maps)
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.
Reported in New York Official Reports at Charles Deng Acupuncture, P.C. v Unitrin Auto & Home Ins. Co. (2017 NY Slip Op 51834(U))
| Charles Deng Acupuncture, P.C. v Unitrin Auto & Home Ins. Co. |
| 2017 NY Slip Op 51834(U) [58 Misc 3d 138(A)] |
| Decided on December 19, 2017 |
| 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| This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 December 19, 2017
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 2d, 11th and 13th
JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : MICHAEL L. PESCE, P.J., THOMAS P. ALIOTTA, MARTIN M.
SOLOMON, JJ
2015-1503 K C
against
Unitrin Auto and Home Insurance Company, Respondent.
The Rybak Firm, PLLC (Damin J. Toell, Esq.), for appellant. Gullo & Associates, LLC (Natalie Socorro, Esq.), for respondent.
Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Devin P. Cohen, J.), entered February 13, 2015. The order, insofar as appealed from, denied the branch of plaintiff’s motion seeking summary judgment upon the second cause of action and granted the branch of defendant’s cross motion seeking summary judgment dismissing 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, plaintiff moved for summary judgment and defendant cross-moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Civil Court entered February 13, 2015 as denied the branch of plaintiff’s motion seeking summary judgment upon the second cause of action and granted the branch of defendant’s cross motion seeking summary judgment dismissing that cause of action.
Contrary to plaintiff’s sole argument as to defendant’s cross motion, the affidavit submitted by defendant was sufficient to demonstrate that the independent medical examination scheduling letters had been timely 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: December 19, 2017
Legal questions (2)
Questions of no-fault law this decision rules on, from our Legal Questions pages. Bars count the decisions on the question by year and court, coloured by category; circles are this decision and the decisions on the question it cites or that cite it. Point at a bar or circle for details. The categories and summaries are Beynenson Law’s classification, made by a language model and checked by a second reading.
Did a party’s evidence establish that it mailed a no-fault claim, denial, verification request or examination notice?
This decision: The insurer's (or its agent's) proof established mailing of its denial, verification request or IME/EUO notice
Held the insurer's affidavit sufficient to demonstrate that the IME scheduling letters had been timely mailed, rejecting the provider's sole argument.
Of the 1,384 decisions on this question in the Second Department courts and the Court of Appeals, 806 (this one included) are in the same category.
Did the insurer prove its IME/EUO no-show defense: mailed, compliant scheduling requests and the claimant’s nonappearance?
This decision: Insurer proved mailed, compliant requests and the nonappearance; claimant's answers rejected
Upheld dismissal on the IME no-show because the insurer's affidavit sufficiently showed timely mailing of the scheduling letters, the only element the provider challenged.
Of the 851 decisions on this question in the Second Department courts and the Court of Appeals, 525 (this one included) are in the same category.
Cited in this decision
A label shows how this decision treated the case it cites.
- St. Vincent’s Hosp. of Richmond v Government Empls. Ins. Co. (2008 NY Slip Op 04072) FollowedThe insurer raised factual issues concerning a proper timely denial and its entitlement to deny the hospital's claim.
Similar decisions
- Charles Deng Acupuncture, P.C. v Allstate Ins. Co. (2017 NY Slip Op 51451(U))The insurer's affidavits failed to establish timely mailing, and the provider's affidavit failed to establish its prima facie case.
- Charles Deng Acupuncture, P.C. v New S. Ins. Co. (2017 NY Slip Op 51189(U))The insurer's summary judgment dismissal was affirmed because the provider's challenges lacked merit or were first raised on appeal.
- Charles Deng Acupuncture, P.C. v Nationwide Ins. (2022 NY Slip Op 50580(U))The provider's arguments against the insurer's summary judgment motion were unpreserved because they were raised for the first time on appeal.
- Charles Deng Acupuncture, P.C. v Travelers Ins. Co. (2020 NY Slip Op 51320(U))The insurer proved timely EUO notices and denials and the assignor's nonappearance, while the provider raised no triable issue.
- Charles Deng Acupuncture, P.C. v 21st Century Ins. Co. (2017 NY Slip Op 51197(U))The provider's summary judgment motion on one claim was denied on appeal because the propriety of the insurer's denial remained disputed.