September 8, 2017

Charles Deng Acupuncture, P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (2017 NY Slip Op 51156(U))

Headnote

The court considered the fact that the provider, Charles Deng Acupuncture, P.C., was seeking to recover first-party no-fault benefits from State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. The main issue decided was whether the defendant's motion for summary judgment to dismiss the complaint should be granted. The court held that the proof submitted by defendant demonstrated that the plaintiff's assignor had failed to appear for examinations under oath, and therefore affirmed the order granting defendant's motion for summary judgment.

Reported in New York Official Reports at Charles Deng Acupuncture, P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (2017 NY Slip Op 51156(U))

Charles Deng Acupuncture, P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (2017 NY Slip Op 51156(U)) [*1]

Charles Deng Acupuncture, P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.

2017 NY Slip Op 51156(U) [57 Misc 3d 128(A)]

Decided on September 8, 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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 September 8, 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
2014-1971 Q C

Charles Deng Acupuncture, P.C., as Assignee of Civil, Erienne, Appellant,
against
State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co., Respondent.

The Rybak Firm, PLLC (Damin J. Toell, Esq.), for appellant. Rivkin Radler, LLP (Merril S. Biscone, Esq.), for respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Larry Love, J.), entered August 4, 2014. The order granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with $25 costs.

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

Contrary to plaintiff’s sole contention on appeal, the proof submitted by defendant in support of its motion was sufficient to demonstrate that plaintiff’s assignor had failed to appear for examinations under oath (see Stephen Fogel Psychological, P.C. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 35 AD3d 720 [2006]).

Accordingly, the order is affirmed.

PESCE, P.J., ALIOTTA and SOLOMON, JJ., concur.

Paul Kenny
Chief Clerk
Decision Date: September 08, 2017