August 20, 2014
Lotus Acupuncture, P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (2014 NY Slip Op 51315(U))
https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/lotus-acupuncture-p-c-v-state-farm-mut-auto-ins-co-2014-ny-slip-op51315u/
- Decided
- August 20, 2014
- Citation
- 2014 NY Slip Op 51315(U)
- Posture
- Summary judgment
- Outcome
- Insurer prevailed
- Later treatment
- Followed in 3 later decisions (see Cited by)
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 Lotus Acupuncture, P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (2014 NY Slip Op 51315(U))
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 2d, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
against
State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co., Respondent.
Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Joseph E. Capella, J.), entered August 3, 2012, deemed from a judgment of the same court entered September 28, 2012 (see CPLR 5501 [c]). The judgment, entered pursuant to the August 3, 2012 order granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and denying plaintiff’s cross motion to, among other things, disqualify defendant’s law firm from representing defendant in this action, dismissed the complaint.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, with $25 costs.
In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, insofar as is relevant to this appeal, defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that plaintiff had failed to appear for duly scheduled examinations under oath (EUOs). The motion was supported by, among other things, an affirmation from a partner in the law firm representing defendant, attesting to plaintiff’s failure to appear. Plaintiff cross-moved to, among other things, disqualify the law firm representing defendant, pursuant to rule 3.7 of the Rules of Professional Conduct (22 NYCRR 1200.0), on the ground that a member of the firm was a necessary witness in this case. Plaintiff appeals from an order of the Civil Court entered August 3, 2012 granting defendant’s motion and denying plaintiff’s cross motion. A judgment was subsequently entered dismissing the complaint, from which the appeal is deemed to have been taken (see CPLR 5501 [c]).
As to defendant’s motion for summary judgment, we find that, contrary to plaintiff’s arguments on appeal, defendant submitted sufficient proof to show that the EUO scheduling letters and the denial of claim form had been timely mailed (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]), and that plaintiff had failed to appear at either of the duly scheduled EUOs (see Stephen Fogel Psychological, P.C. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 35 AD3d 720 [2006]). An appearance at an EUO is a condition precedent to an insurer’s liability on a policy (see Insurance Department Regulations [11 NYCRR] § 65-1.1; Stephen Fogel Psychological, P.C., 35 AD3d 720). Therefore, and as plaintiff’s remaining contentions with respect to this motion lack merit, we find that the Civil Court properly granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
In light of the foregoing, plaintiff’s request that defendant’s law firm be disqualified based [*2]on the attorney/witness rule is “moot since, summary judgment having been granted, there will be no trial of this matter” (Quiros v Mount St. Michael Academy, 303 AD2d 185, 186 [2003]; see also Lombino v Town Bd. of Town of Rye, 206 AD2d 462 [1994]). In any event, plaintiff failed to establish that disqualification of defendant’s law firm was warranted (see S & S Hotel Ventures Ltd. Partnership v 777 S. H. Corp., 69 NY2d 437 [1987]; see also e.g. Magnus v Sklover, 95 AD3d 837 [2012]; Matter of Advent Assoc., LLC v Vogt Family Inv. Partners, L.P., 56 AD3d 1023 [2008]; Hudson Val. Mar., Inc. v Town of Cortlandt, 54 AD3d 999 [2008]; Daniel Gale Assoc., Inc. v George, 8 AD3d 608 [2004]; Broadwhite Assoc. v Truong, 237 AD2d 162 [1997]; Matter of Cowen & Co. v Tecnoconsult Holdings, 234 AD2d 86 [1996]; Talvy v American Red Cross in Greater NY, 205 AD2d 143 [1994], affd 87 NY2d 826 [1995]; Kaplan v Maytex Mills, 187 AD2d 565 [1992]).
Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.
Pesce, P.J., Solomon and Elliot, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: August 20, 2014
Legal questions (3)
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
Rejected the provider's arguments and held the insurer's proof sufficient to show timely mailing of the EUO scheduling letters and the denial of claim form.
Of the 1,400 decisions on this question in the Second Department courts and the Court of Appeals, 809 (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
Held the insurer proved timely mailing of the EUO scheduling letters and, through its law-firm partner's affirmation, the provider's failure to appear at both EUOs, a condition precedent to liability.
Of the 858 decisions on this question in the Second Department courts and the Court of Appeals, 527 (this one included) are in the same category.
Is an IME/EUO no-show defense precluded if the insurer did not timely deny the claim on that ground?
This decision: Timely denial required as part of the no-show defense, and the insurer showed it (rules on the question, but another ground decided the case)
Held the insurer submitted sufficient proof that the denial of claim form based on the EUO nonappearance had been timely mailed.
Of the 508 decisions on this question in the Second Department courts and the Court of Appeals, 338 (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)The insurer raised factual issues concerning a proper timely denial and its entitlement to deny the hospital's claim.
- Delta Diagnostic Radiology, P.C. v Chubb Group of Ins. (2007 NY Slip Op 27345)An insurer may prove mailing by describing its standard procedure for properly addressing and mailing items.
- Stephen Fogel Psychological, P.C. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co. (2006 NY Slip Op 09604) FollowedAn insurer may deny benefits retroactively to the date of loss for failure to attend reasonably required IMEs under 11 NYCRR 65-1.1.
Cited by
A label shows how the later decision treated this one.
- BNE Clinton Med., P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co. (2021 NY Slip Op 50083(U)) FollowedAn insurer seeking summary judgment for EUO nonappearance need not prove timely mailing of prescribed forms upon learning of the accident.
- Renelique Med. Servs., P.C. v State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. (2017 NY Slip Op 50163(U)) FollowedThe insurer's attorney affirmation based on personal knowledge established the provider's failure to attend scheduled EUOs. The insurer sought summary judgment dismissing the assigned no-fault claims, supporting its motion with a law-firm partner's affirmation attesting to the nonappearances.
- Healthy Way Acupuncture, P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (2015 NY Slip Op 51049(U)) FollowedThe insurer's summary judgment motion based on the provider's EUO nonappearances was granted, and disqualification of its law firm was denied.
Similar decisions
- LMS Acupuncture, P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (2018 NY Slip Op 51655(U))An insurer need not state objective reasons for requesting EUOs to establish prima facie entitlement to summary judgment for nonappearance.
- LMS Acupuncture, P.C. v State Farm Mut. Automotive Ins. Co. (2019 NY Slip Op 50696(U))An insurer need not state objective reasons for requesting EUOs to obtain summary judgment based on a provider's nonappearance.
- Points of Health Acupuncture, P.C. v Lancer Ins. Co. (2010 NY Slip Op 51455(U))The insurer established timely mailing of EUO notices and denials, and the provider's failure to attend the scheduled EUOs. The provider opposed the insurer's summary judgment motion and cross-moved for judgment, challenging notice mailing and proof of nonappearance.
- Oleg’s Acupuncture, P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (2019 NY Slip Op 51045(U))An EUO letter's different contact at the same law firm does not undermine an otherwise sufficient affirmation of nonappearance.
- Dynamic Balance Acupuncture, P.C. v State Farm Ins. (2019 NY Slip Op 50171(U))The provider's challenge to the EUO demands failed because it offered no proof of mailing its objection letter.