December 19, 2017

Doctor Goldshteyn Chiropractic, P.C. v Travelers Indem. Co. (2017 NY Slip Op 51816(U))

Headnote

The provider's action was premature because the insurer had not received the requested verification. The provider sought assigned first-party no-fault benefits and appealed from summary judgment dismissing its complaint. The record demonstrated nonreceipt of the requested verification, and the provider acknowledged on appeal that it had responded only partially to the requests. Applying Central Suffolk Hosp. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., the Appellate Term, Second Department, affirmed the order in the insurer's favor.

Reported in New York Official Reports at Doctor Goldshteyn Chiropractic, P.C. v Travelers Indem. Co. (2017 NY Slip Op 51816(U))

[*1]
Doctor Goldshteyn Chiropractic, P.C. v Travelers Indem. Co.
2017 NY Slip Op 51816(U) [58 Misc 3d 136(A)]
Decided on December 19, 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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 December 19, 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
2015-1016 K C

Doctor Goldshteyn Chiropractic, P.C., as Assignee of Paulette Saunders, Appellant,

against

Travelers Indemnity Co., Respondent.


Kopelevich & Feldsherova, P.C. (Galina Feldsherova, Esq.), for appellant. Law Offices of Aloy O. Ibuzor (Michael L. Rappaport, Esq.), for respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Robin Kelly Sheares, J.), entered January 12, 2015. 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 contention, the record demonstrates that defendant did not receive requested verification and, thus, that the action is premature (see Central Suffolk Hosp. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 24 AD3d 492 [2005]). Indeed, on appeal, plaintiff notes that it had partially responded to defendant’s verification requests.

Accordingly, the order is affirmed.

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


ENTER:
Paul Kenny
Chief Clerk
Decision Date: December 19, 2017

Similar decisions