June 6, 2016

Daily Med. Equip. Distrib. Ctr., Inc. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (2016 NY Slip Op 50929(U))

Headnote

The court considered the facts of the case, where a provider was seeking to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits from an insurance company. The insurance company had moved for summary judgment, claiming that the action was premature because the provider had failed to provide requested verification. The main issue decided was whether the insurance company's motion for summary judgment should be granted or denied. The court held that the insurance company's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint was denied, reversing the previous order, and stating that the action was not premature.

Reported in New York Official Reports at Daily Med. Equip. Distrib. Ctr., Inc. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (2016 NY Slip Op 50929(U))

Daily Med. Equip. Distrib. Ctr., Inc. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (2016 NY Slip Op 50929(U)) [*1]

Daily Med. Equip. Distrib. Ctr., Inc. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.

2016 NY Slip Op 50929(U) [52 Misc 3d 129(A)]

Decided on June 6, 2016

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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 June 6, 2016

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

PRESENT: : PESCE, P.J., ALIOTTA and SOLOMON, JJ.
2013-2371 Q C

Daily Medical Equipment Distribution Center, Inc., as Assignee of FRANCES McCOWN, Appellant,
against
STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INS. CO., Respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Larry Love, J.), entered October 2, 2013. The order granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

ORDERED that the order is reversed, with $30 costs, and defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is denied.

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 the action was premature because plaintiff had failed to provide requested verification. By order entered October 2, 2013, the Civil Court granted defendant’s motion.

For the reasons stated in Great Health Care Chiropractic, P.C., as Assignee of Carlos Thomas v Hereford Ins. Co. (___ Misc 3d ___, 2016 NY Slip Op ___ [appeal No. 2013-1720 Q C], decided herewith), the order is reversed and defendant’s motion for summary judgment is denied.

Pesce, P.J., Aliotta and Solomon, JJ., concur.

Decision Date: June 06, 2016