December 19, 2017

Healthy Way Acupuncture, P.C. v NY Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. (2017 NY Slip Op 51828(U))

Headnote

The main issue in this case was whether the plaintiff, Healthy Way Acupuncture, P.C., had failed to provide requested verification for a claim to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, which led to the dismissal of the complaint as premature. The court considered the follow-up verification requests issued by the defendant and determined that they were proper under the law. The court also acknowledged that any confusion on the part of the plaintiff as to what was being sought should have been addressed by further communication, not inaction. Ultimately, the court affirmed the order of the Civil Court, granting defendant's motion for summary judgment and dismissing the complaint, while also denying plaintiff's cross motion for summary judgment.

Reported in New York Official Reports at Healthy Way Acupuncture, P.C. v NY Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. (2017 NY Slip Op 51828(U))

Healthy Way Acupuncture, P.C. v NY Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. (2017 NY Slip Op 51828(U)) [*1]

Healthy Way Acupuncture, P.C. v NY Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co.

2017 NY Slip Op 51828(U) [58 Misc 3d 137(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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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
2015-1221 K C

Healthy Way Acupuncture, P.C., as Assignee of Kenia Rosado, Appellant,
against
NY Central Mutual Fire Ins. Co., Respondent.

Gary Tsirelman, P.C. (Darya Klein, Esq.), for appellant. Nightingale Law, P.C. (Michael S. Nightingale, Esq.), for respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Carol Ruth Feinman, J.), entered February 20, 2015. The order granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and denied plaintiff’s cross motion for summary judgment.

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 as premature on the ground that plaintiff had failed to provide requested verification, and denied plaintiff’s cross motion for summary judgment.

Contrary to plaintiff’s only argument on appeal, the follow-up verification requests issued by defendant were proper (see 11 NYCRR 65-3.6 [b]). In any event, “[a]ny confusion on the part of [] plaintiff as to what was being sought should have been addressed by further communication, not inaction” (Westchester County Med. Ctr. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 262 AD2d 553, 555 [1999]).

Accordingly, the order is affirmed.

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

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