July 11, 2019

Central Park Physical Medicine & Rehab., P.C. v IDS Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. (2019 NY Slip Op 51148(U))

Headnote

The court considered a case in which Central Park Physical Medicine & Rehab, P.C. sought to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits from IDS Property & Casualty Insurance Company. The main issue was whether the insurance company had established that it had timely mailed each of the examination under oath (EUO) scheduling letters to the medical provider. The holding of the court was that the insurance company had demonstrated that it had timely mailed the scheduling letters and that the medical provider had failed to appear for the scheduled EUOs. As a result, the court reversed the lower court's decision and granted the insurance company's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The decision was made on July 11, 2019.

Reported in New York Official Reports at Central Park Physical Medicine & Rehab., P.C. v IDS Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. (2019 NY Slip Op 51148(U))

Central Park Physical Medicine & Rehab., P.C. v IDS Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. (2019 NY Slip Op 51148(U)) [*1]
Central Park Physical Medicine & Rehab., P.C. v IDS Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co.
2019 NY Slip Op 51148(U) [64 Misc 3d 135(A)]
Decided on July 11, 2019
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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 July 11, 2019

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


PRESENT: : THOMAS A. ADAMS, P.J., JERRY GARGUILO, ELIZABETH H. EMERSON, JJ
2018-444 S C
Central Park Physical Medicine & Rehab., P.C., as Assignee of Rafsan Choudhry, Respondent,

against

IDS Property & Casualty Insurance Company, Appellant.

Bruno, Gerbino & Soriano, LLP (Nathan Shapiro of counsel), for appellant. Sanders Barshay Grossman, LLC (Steven J. Neuwirth of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal from an order of the District Court of Suffolk County, Fourth District (James F. Matthews, J.), dated October 12, 2017. The order denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

ORDERED that the order is reversed, without costs, and defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted.

In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, defendant appeals from an order of the District Court which denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Defendant established that it had timely mailed (see St. Vincent’s Hosp. of Richmond v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 50 AD3d 1123 [2008]) each of the examination under oath (EUO) scheduling letters by both first-class and certified mail, return receipt requested. While the District Court held that defendant had failed to establish that the follow-up EUO scheduling letter had been mailed by certified mail, that finding, even if correct, would not excuse the failure of plaintiff to appear for the duly scheduled EUOs, since the record does not contain any evidence showing that the mailing of the EUO scheduling letters to plaintiff by first-class mail had been insufficient (see MML Med. Care, P.C. v Praetorian Ins. Co., 46 Misc 3d 127[A], 2014 NY Slip Op 51792[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2014]). Defendant further demonstrated that plaintiff had failed to appear for the duly scheduled EUOs (see Stephen Fogel Psychological, P.C. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 35 AD3d 720 [2006]), and that defendant had timely mailed (see St. Vincent’s Hosp. of Richmond, 50 AD3d 1123) the denial of claim forms, which denied the claims on the ground that plaintiff had failed to appear for the duly scheduled EUOs. Plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact in opposition to defendant’s prima facie showing.

Accordingly, the order is reversed and defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted.

ADAMS, P.J., GARGUILO and EMERSON, JJ., concur.


ENTER:
Paul Kenny
Chief Clerk
Decision Date: July 11, 2019