May 16, 2025

Burke 2 Physical Therapy, P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (2025 NY Slip Op 50840(U))

Headnote

The court considered the fact that Burke 2 Physical Therapy, P.C. sought to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits but faced a challenge from State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company regarding the provision of requested verification. The main issue decided was whether the plaintiff had adequately complied with the insurer's verification requests, which the defendant argued was necessary for the claim to proceed. Ultimately, the court held that the plaintiff failed to provide the required verification, resulting in the affirmation of the Civil Court's order that granted State Farm's cross-motion for summary judgment, thus dismissing the complaint. The ruling underscored the importance of meeting verification requirements in no-fault insurance claims.

Reported in New York Official Reports at Burke 2 Physical Therapy, P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (2025 NY Slip Op 50840(U))

[*1]

Burke 2 Physical Therapy, P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.

2025 NY Slip Op 50840(U) [86 Misc 3d 128(A)]

Decided on May 16, 2025

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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 May 16, 2025

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

PRESENT: : CHEREÉ A. BUGGS, J.P., LISA S. OTTLEY, JOANNE D. QUIÑONES, JJ
2023-1102 K C

Burke 2 Physical Therapy, P.C., as Assignee of Garcia, Alfredo, Appellant,

against

State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co., Respondent.

The Rybak Firm, PLLC (Oleg Rybak and Richard Rozhik of counsel), for appellant. Rivkin Radler, LLP (Stuart M. Bodoff of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Sandra E. Roper, J.), dated September 8, 2023. The order, insofar as appealed from as limited by the brief, granted defendant’s cross-motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

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 appeals, as limited by the brief, from so much of an order of the Civil Court (Sandra E. Roper, J.) dated September 8, 2023 as granted defendant’s cross-motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that plaintiff had failed to provide requested verification.

For the reasons stated in Burke Physical Therapy, P.C., as Assignee of Brown, Wildex v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (— Misc 3d —, 2025 NY Slip Op _____ [appeal No. 2023-1091 K C], decided herewith), the order, insofar as appealed from, is affirmed.

BUGGS, J.P. and QUIÑONES, JJ., concur.

OTTLEY, J., taking no part.

ENTER:
Paul Kenny
Chief Clerk
Decision Date: May 16, 2025