December 19, 2017

Alas Lifespan Wellness, PT, P.C. v Global Liberty Ins. Co. of NY (2017 NY Slip Op 51825(U))

Headnote

The court considered the motion for summary judgment by the defendant to dismiss the complaint on the grounds that the plaintiff's assignor failed to appear for independent medical examinations (IMEs). The plaintiff had also cross-moved for summary judgment. The main issues decided were whether the defendant's IME scheduling letters were properly mailed and whether the plaintiff's assignor had failed to appear for the IMEs. The holding of the court was that the only issues for trial were the mailings of the IME scheduling letters and the failure of the plaintiff's assignor to appear for the IMEs. The court affirmed the order with the costs of $25.

Reported in New York Official Reports at Alas Lifespan Wellness, PT, P.C. v Global Liberty Ins. Co. of NY (2017 NY Slip Op 51825(U))

Alas Lifespan Wellness, PT, P.C. v Global Liberty Ins. Co. of NY (2017 NY Slip Op 51825(U)) [*1]
Alas Lifespan Wellness, PT, P.C. v Global Liberty Ins. Co. of NY
2017 NY Slip Op 51825(U) [58 Misc 3d 137(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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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
2015-1163 K C

Alas Lifespan Wellness, PT, P.C., as Assignee of Tarrant Jiles, Appellant,

against

Global Liberty Ins. Co. of NY, Respondent.

Korsunskiy Legal Group, P.C. (Michael Hoenig, Esq.), for appellant. The Law Office of Nancy S. Linden (Nancy S. Linden, Esq.), for respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Katherine A. Levine, J.), entered January 30, 2015. The order, insofar as appealed from and as limited by the brief, denied plaintiff’s cross motion for summary judgment.

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 moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that plaintiff’s assignor had failed to appear for independent medical examinations (IMEs), and plaintiff cross-moved for summary judgment. By order entered January 30, 2015, the Civil Court denied defendant’s motion and plaintiff’s cross motion, but held that the only issues for trial were whether defendant’s IME scheduling letters had been properly mailed and whether plaintiff’s assignor had failed to appear for the IMEs. Plaintiff appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of the order as denied its cross motion for summary judgment.

For the reasons stated in Acupuncture Choice, P.C., as Assignee of Equan Thomason v American Tr. Ins. Co. (__ Misc 3d ___, 2017 NY Slip Op _____ [appeal No. 2015-1154 K C], decided herewith), 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