Decided on November 1, 2016

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

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Richard G. Latin, J.), entered September 17, 2013. 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 modified by providing that defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is denied; as so modified, the order is affirmed, without 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 on the ground that plaintiff had failed to appear for duly scheduled examinations under oath. By order entered September 17, 2013, the Civil Court denied plaintiff’s motion and granted defendant’s cross motion.

For the reasons stated in Omphil Care, Inc., as Assignee of Paul Fabiola v Allstate Ins. Co. (___ Misc 3d ___, 2016 NY Slip Op ____ [appeal No. 2013-2290 Q C], decided herewith), the order is modified by providing that defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is denied.

Pesce, P.J., Aliotta and Solomon, JJ., concur.

Decided on November 1, 2016

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

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Richard G. Latin, J.), entered September 16, 2013. 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 modified by providing that defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is denied; as so modified, the order is affirmed, without 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 on the ground that plaintiff had failed to appear for duly scheduled examinations under oath. By order entered September 16, 2013, the Civil Court denied plaintiff’s motion and granted defendant’s cross motion.

For the reasons stated in Omphil Care, Inc., as Assignee of Paul Fabiola v Allstate Ins. Co. (___ Misc 3d ___, 2016 NY Slip Op ___ [appeal No. 2013-2290 Q C], decided herewith), the order is modified by providing that defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is denied.

Pesce, P.J., Aliotta and Solomon, JJ., concur.

Decided on November 1, 2016

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

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Richard G. Latin, J.), entered September 16, 2013. 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 modified by providing that defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is denied; as so modified, the order is affirmed, without 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 on the ground that plaintiff had failed to appear for duly scheduled examinations under oath. By order entered September 16, 2013, the Civil Court denied plaintiff’s motion and granted defendant’s cross motion.

For the reasons stated in Omphil Care, Inc., as Assignee of Paul Fabiola v Allstate Ins. Co. (___ Misc 3d ___, 2016 NY Slip Op _____ [appeal No. 2013-2290 Q C], decided herewith), the order is modified by providing that defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is denied.

Pesce, P.J., Aliotta and Solomon, JJ., concur.

Decided on November 1, 2016

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

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (William A. Viscovich, J.), entered September 13, 2013. 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 modified by providing that defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is denied; as so modified, the order is affirmed, without 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 on the ground that plaintiff had failed to appear for duly scheduled examinations under oath. By order entered September 13, 2013, the Civil Court denied plaintiff’s motion and granted defendant’s cross motion.

For the reasons stated in Omphil Care, Inc., as Assignee of Paul Fabiola v Allstate Ins. Co. (___ Misc 3d ___, 2016 NY Slip Op ____ [appeal No. 2013-2290 Q C], decided herewith), the order is modified by providing that defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is denied.

Pesce, P.J., Aliotta and Solomon, JJ., concur.

Decided on November 1, 2016

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

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (William A. Viscovich, J.), entered September 13, 2013. 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 modified by providing that defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is denied; as so modified, the order is affirmed, without 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 on the ground that plaintiff had failed to appear for duly scheduled examinations under oath. By order entered September 13, 2013, the Civil Court denied plaintiff’s motion and granted defendant’s cross motion.

Plaintiff correctly contends that defendant’s cross-moving papers failed to establish, as a matter of law, that 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]). As a result, defendant did not demonstrate that it is not precluded from asserting its proffered defense. Consequently, defendant is not entitled to summary judgment. However, contrary to plaintiff’s contention, plaintiff failed to demonstrate its prima facie entitlement to summary judgment, as the affidavit submitted by plaintiff in support of its motion failed to establish that the claim at issue had not been timely denied (see Viviane Etienne Med. Care, P.C. v Country-Wide Ins. Co., 25 NY3d 498 [2015]), or that defendant had issued a timely denial of claim that was conclusory, vague or without merit as a matter of law (see Westchester Med. Ctr. v Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 78 AD3d 1168 [2010]; Ave T MPC Corp. v Auto One Ins. Co., 32 Misc 3d 128[A], 2011 NY Slip Op 51292[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2011]).

Accordingly, the order is modified by providing that defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is denied.

Pesce, P.J., Aliotta and Solomon, JJ., concur.

Decided on October 31, 2016

SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS

Appeal from an order of the District Court of Suffolk County, Second District (Carl J. Copertino, J.), dated December 23, 2014. The order, insofar as appealed from as limited by the brief, denied the branches of defendant’s motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the fifth, seventh, ninth, eleventh, thirteenth and fifteenth causes of action.

ORDERED that the order, insofar as appealed from, is affirmed, without costs.

In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, defendant moved, insofar as is relevant to this appeal, for summary judgment dismissing the fifth, seventh, ninth, eleventh, thirteenth and fifteenth causes of action on the ground that plaintiff’s assignor had failed to appear for duly scheduled independent medical examinations (IMEs). In opposition, plaintiff argued with respect to those causes of action that defendant had failed to establish that it had timely mailed its IME scheduling letters and denial of claim forms. By order dated December 23, 2014, the District Court, among other things, denied those branches of defendant’s motion.

Upon a review of the record, we find that defendant failed to establish as a matter of law that the IME scheduling letters at issue had been timely and properly mailed (see St. Vincent’s Hosp. of Richmond v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 50 AD3d 1123 [2008]). Consequently, as defendant did not demonstrate that its 30-day period to pay or deny the claims had been tolled, defendant failed to make a prima facie showing of its entitlement to summary judgment dismissing the fifth, seventh, ninth, eleventh, thirteenth and fifteenth causes of action.

Accordingly, the order, insofar as appealed from, is affirmed.

Iannacci, J.P., Tolbert and Garguilo, JJ., concur.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Richard G. Latin, J.), entered December 11, 2014. The order, insofar as appealed from and as limited by the brief, granted the branch of defendant’s motion seeking to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3126.

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, defendant answered the complaint and served demands for discovery, including a notice to take the deposition of plaintiff. Thereafter, defendant moved, insofar as is relevant to this appeal, to compel plaintiff to provide discovery. Defendant argued in support of its motion that it sought plaintiff’s testimony as well as documentary evidence in connection with its defense that plaintiff was ineligible for reimbursement of no-fault benefits. By order entered March 31, 2014, the Civil Court granted defendant’s unopposed motion and directed plaintiff to “provide discovery responses to outstanding discovery demands within 60 days.”

When plaintiff’s time to respond had passed, defendant moved to dismiss the complaint, pursuant to CPLR 3126, on the ground that plaintiff had failed to comply with the March 31, 2014 order. On September 9, 2014, plaintiff served its opposition to the motion along with written responses to defendant’s discovery demands. Plaintiff appeals from an order of the Civil Court, entered December 11, 2014, which, among other things, granted defendant’s motion and dismissed the complaint.

The determination of whether to strike a pleading for failure to comply with court-ordered disclosure lies within the sound discretion of the motion court (see CPLR 3126; Orgel v Stewart Tit. Ins. Co., 91 AD3d 922 [2012], Giano v Ioannou, 78 AD3d 768 [2010], Fishbane v Chelsea Hall, LLC, 65 AD3d 1079 [2009]; Mir v Saad, 54 AD3d 914 [2008]; see also Kihl v Pfeffer, 94 NY2d 118 [1999]). Although dismissing a complaint pursuant to CPLR 3126 is a drastic remedy, it is warranted where a party’s conduct is shown to be willful, contumacious or in bad faith (see Rock City Sound, Inc. v Bashian & Farber, LLP, 83 AD3d 685 [2011]). In the case at bar, that plaintiff’s conduct was willful and contumacious can be inferred from its refusal to adequately comply with discovery requests, even after being directed to do so by court order, as well as from the absence of a reasonable excuse for its failure to comply (see Tos v Jackson Hgts. Care Ctr., LLC, 91 AD3d 943 [2012]; Rowell v Joyce, 10 AD3d 601 [2004]).

Accordingly, the order, insofar as appealed from, is affirmed.

Pesce, P.J., Weston and Aliotta, JJ., concur.