September 10, 2008

Bath Med. Supply, Inc. v American Tr. Ins. Co. (2008 NY Slip Op 51873(U))

Headnote

The relevant facts of the case involved Bath Medical Supply, Inc. seeking to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits and moving to compel the deposition of defendant American Transit Insurance Co. Defendant failed to oppose the motion. The main issue decided was whether the court should grant plaintiff's motion to compel defendant to appear for a deposition. The holding of the case was that the order denying plaintiff's motion was reversed without costs and plaintiff's motion was granted to the extent that defendant was ordered to appear for a deposition within 30 days of the order.

Reported in New York Official Reports at Bath Med. Supply, Inc. v American Tr. Ins. Co. (2008 NY Slip Op 51873(U))

Bath Med. Supply, Inc. v American Tr. Ins. Co. (2008 NY Slip Op 51873(U)) [*1]
Bath Med. Supply, Inc. v American Tr. Ins. Co.
2008 NY Slip Op 51873(U) [20 Misc 3d 145(A)]
Decided on September 10, 2008
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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 September 10, 2008

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

APPELLATE TERM: 2nd and 11th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS


PRESENT: : PESCE, P.J., RIOS and STEINHARDT, JJ
2007-1795 K C.
Bath Medical Supply, Inc. a/a/o Lyudmila Khanukayeva , Appellant,

against

American Transit Insurance Co., Respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Alan L. Lebowitz, J.H.O.), entered September 27, 2007. The order denied plaintiff’s motion, inter alia, to compel the deposition of defendant.

Order reversed without costs and plaintiff’s motion granted to the extent that defendant is ordered to appear for a deposition within 30 days of the order entered hereon.

In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, plaintiff moved to compel the deposition of defendant and for a conditional order striking defendant’s answer or precluding defendant from testifying in the event defendant fails
to comply. Defendant failed to oppose said motion. Accordingly, the court should have granted plaintiff’s motion to the extent of compelling defendant to appear for a deposition (see Crossbay Acupuncture, P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 15 Misc 3d 110 [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2007]).

Pesce, P.J., Rios and Steinhardt, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: September 10, 2008