October 21, 2004

Fair Price Med. Supply Corp. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (2004 NY Slip Op 51242(U))

Headnote

The court considered the submissions by both the plaintiff and defendant, including the affidavit of the defendant's special investigator supported by examinations under oath taken of the plaintiff's assignor and other persons involved in the accident. The main issue decided was whether the defendant's submissions raised a triable issue of fact as to whether the collision was part of a fraudulent insurance scheme. The holding of the court was that the defendant's submissions were sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact, and therefore the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment was properly denied.

Reported in New York Official Reports at Fair Price Med. Supply Corp. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (2004 NY Slip Op 51242(U))

Fair Price Med. Supply Corp. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (2004 NY Slip Op 51242(U)) [*1]

Fair Price Med. Supply Corp. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.

2004 NY Slip Op 51242(U)

Decided on October 21, 2004

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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 21, 2004

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

APPELLATE TERM: 2nd and 11th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS

PRESENT: ARONIN, J.P., PATTERSON and GOLIA, JJ.
2003-1651 K C

FAIR PRICE MEDICAL SUPPLY CORP. a/a/o MARIE PAUL, Appellant,
against
STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Respondent.

Appeal by plaintiff from an order of the Civil Court, Kings County (J. Sullivan, J.), entered on December 2, 2002, which denied its motion for summary judgment.

Order unanimously affirmed without costs.
In this action to recover assigned no-fault benefits, defendant’s submissions in opposition to plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment consisting of, inter alia, the affidavit of its special investigator supported by examinations under oath taken of [*2]
plaintiff’s assignor and other persons involved in the accident, are sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the collision was part of a fraudulent insurance scheme. Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment was properly denied.
Decision Date: October 21, 2004