August 31, 2012

East Gun Hill Med., P.C. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. (2012 NY Slip Op 51723(U))

https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/east-gun-hill-med-p-c-v-new-york-cent-mut-fire-ins-co-2012-ny-slipop-51723u/

Court: Appellate Term, Second Department
Decided: August 31, 2012
Citation: 2012 NY Slip Op 51723(U) · 36 Misc 3d 154(A)
Posture: Summary judgment
Outcome: Provider prevailed
Issues: Timeliness and preclusion

Cite as

East Gun Hill Med., P.C. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 36 Misc 3d 154(A), 2012 NY Slip Op 51723(U) (App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2012)

Posture, outcome, issues and treatment by other decisions are Beynenson Law’s classification. Treatment labels are assigned by a language model reading the citing decision; negative and appeal-history labels are checked by a second reader.

Summary

Editorial summary by Beynenson Law, not part of the court’s decision.

The insurer's summary judgment motion based on late accident notice and late proof of claim was denied, and that denial was affirmed. The Appellate Term, Second Department, affirmed the order insofar as appealed from because the insurer failed to establish, as a matter of law, noncompliance with the 30-day accident-notice or 45-day proof-of-claim requirements of 11 NYCRR 65-1.1.

Reported in New York Official Reports at East Gun Hill Med., P.C. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. (2012 NY Slip Op 51723(U))

[*1]

East Gun Hill Med., P.C. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co.

2012 NY Slip Op 51723(U) [36 Misc 3d 154(A)]

Decided on August 31, 2012

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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 August 31, 2012

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

PRESENT: : PESCE, P.J., RIOS and ALIOTTA, JJ
2011-1215 Q C.

East Gun Hill Medical, P.C. as Assignee of RENNE PABON, Respondent, —
against
New York Central Mutual Fire Insurance Company, Appellant.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Carmen R. Velasquez, J.), entered March 2, 2011. The order, insofar as appealed from, denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

ORDERED that the order, insofar as appealed from, is affirmed, without costs.

In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, we find that the Civil Court properly denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Defendant failed to establish, as a matter of law, its proffered grounds for its entitlement to summary judgment, to wit, that written notice setting forth the details of the accident had not been submitted to defendant within 30 days of the accident or that plaintiff had failed to submit written proof of claim to defendant within 45 days of the services rendered (see Insurance Department Regulations [11 NYCRR] § 65-1.1).

Accordingly, the order, insofar as appealed from, is affirmed.

Pesce, P.J., Rios and Aliotta, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: August 31, 2012

Similar decisions

East Gun Hill Med., P.C. v Fiduciary Ins. Co. of Am. (2012 NY Slip Op 50782(U))The insurer failed to offer a reasonable excuse for its default in opposing the provider's summary judgment motion.
Compas Med., P.C. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. (2016 NY Slip Op 51417(U))The insurer established proper mailing of verification requests and denials and timely denial after receipt of verification.
Brooklyn Hgts. Physical Therapy, P.C. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. (2012 NY Slip Op 51337(U))The insurer's untimely follow-up IME notice failed to toll the claim determination period, precluding its IME and fee defenses.
Clinton Place Med., P.C. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. (2014 NY Slip Op 50468(U))The insurer's IME nonappearance defense did not warrant summary judgment because timely denial remained a factual issue.
Compas Med., P.C. v ELRAC, Inc. (2016 NY Slip Op 51497(U))The defendant established untimely accident notice, timely denials, and the absence of a reasonable justification for the delay.