October 5, 2010

Eagle Surgical Supply, Inc. v Travelers Indem. Co. (2010 NY Slip Op 51775(U))

Headnote

An insurer moved for summary judgment dismissing a provider's no-fault claim as premature because the provider had not supplied additional requested verification. The provider argued it had responded and attached its responses. The Appellate Term found that the insurer's moving papers established timely requests for verification and that the record unequivocally showed the provider did not provide all of the requested verification. Citing 11 NYCRR 65-3.8(a), the court affirmed the order granting summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Reported in New York Official Reports at Eagle Surgical Supply, Inc. v Travelers Indem. Co. (2010 NY Slip Op 51775(U))

[*1]
Eagle Surgical Supply, Inc. v Travelers Indem. Co.
2010 NY Slip Op 51775(U) [29 Misc 3d 129(A)]
Decided on October 5, 2010
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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 October 5, 2010
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

APPELLATE TERM: 2nd, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS

PRESENT: : WESTON, J.P., GOLIA and RIOS, JJ
2009-1669 K C.

Eagle Surgical Supply, Inc. as Assignee of BELLA TSVAYNER, Appellant,

against

Travelers Indemnity Company, Respondent.


Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Genine D. Edwards, J.), entered May 8, 2009. The order granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.


ORDERED that the order is affirmed without costs.

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 additional verification. In opposition to the motion, plaintiff argued, among other things, that it had responded to the requests for additional verification, and annexed its responses as an exhibit. The Civil Court granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and this appeal by plaintiff ensued.

Defendant’s moving papers established that defendant had timely requested additional verification (see St. Vincent’s Hosp. of Richmond v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 50 AD3d 1123 [2008]; Residential Holding Corp. v Scottsdale Ins. Co., 286 AD2d 679 [2001]; Delta Diagnostic Radiology, P.C. v Chubb Group of Ins., 17 Misc 3d 16 [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2007]), and the record unequivocally demonstrates that plaintiff failed to provide all of the requested additional verification. As a result, the order granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is affirmed (see Insurance Department Regulations [11 NYCRR] § 65-3.8 [a]; Central Suffolk Hosp. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 24 AD3d 492 [2005]; Oleg Barshay, D.C., P.C. v State Farm Ins. Co., 14 Misc 3d 74 [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2006]).

Weston, J.P., Golia and Rios, JJ., concur. [*2]
Decision Date: October 05, 2010