September 11, 2012

Darlington Med. Diagnostic, P.C. v Praetorian Ins. Co. (2012 NY Slip Op 51756(U))

Headnote

The court considered the fact that the plaintiff's third-party biller acknowledged receipt of the defendant's follow-up verification demand, but failed to explain why it took no responsive action. In addition, the plaintiff neither claimed nor showed that it responded in any way to the defendant's properly issued verification demands. The main issue decided was whether the defendant-insurer's motion for summary judgment dismissing the first-party no-fault action should be granted. The holding was that the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint was granted, and the complaint was dismissed.

Reported in New York Official Reports at Darlington Med. Diagnostic, P.C. v Praetorian Ins. Co. (2012 NY Slip Op 51756(U))

Darlington Med. Diagnostic, P.C. v Praetorian Ins. Co. (2012 NY Slip Op 51756(U)) [*1]

Darlington Med. Diagnostic, P.C. v Praetorian Ins. Co.

2012 NY Slip Op 51756(U) [36 Misc 3d 155(A)]

Decided on September 11, 2012

Appellate Term, First 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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 11, 2012

SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, FIRST DEPARTMENT

PRESENT: Lowe, III, P.J., Shulman, Torres, JJ
570058/11.

Darlington Medical Diagnostic, P.C. a/a/o Fabiola Pantaleon, Plaintiff-Respondent, – –
against
Praetorian Insurance Company, Defendant-Appellant.

Defendant appeals from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Bronx County (Raul Cruz, J.), entered October 12, 2010, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Per Curiam.

Order (Raul Cruz, J.), entered October 12, 2010, reversed, with $10 costs, motion granted and complaint dismissed. (See Darlington Med. Diagnostic, P.C. v Praetorian Ins. Co., appeal numbered 11-265, decided herewith.) The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.

In granting the defendant-insurer’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the within first-party no-fault action, we note that plaintiff’s third-party biller acknowledged receipt of defendant’s follow-up verification demand, but failed to explain why it took no responsive action. Moreover, contrary to the view expressed below and as plaintiff now expressly acknowledges, plaintiff neither claimed nor showed that it responded in any way to defendant’s properly issued verification demands.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.
Decision Date: September 11, 2012