August 31, 2012

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

Headnote

The court considered the appeal of an order from the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County, which denied the defendant's motion for summary judgment. The main issues decided were whether the defendant had established, as a matter of law, its proffered grounds for entitlement to summary judgment, specifically whether written notice setting forth the details of the accident had been submitted to defendant within 30 days of the accident, and whether the plaintiff had failed to submit written proof of claim to defendant within 45 days of the services rendered. The holding of the case was that the Civil Court properly denied the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, as the defendant failed to establish, as a matter of law, its entitlement to summary judgment based on the specific grounds it had proffered. Therefore, the order of the Civil Court was affirmed.

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))

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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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