September 13, 2006

IK Med., P.C. v Travelers Prop. Cas. Ins. Co. (2006 NY Slip Op 51719(U))

Headnote

The court considered the motion for summary judgment filed by the defendants in a case involving a dispute over first party no-fault benefits. The defendants argued that they were entitled to summary judgment as the plaintiffs' assignors did not respond to their requests for statements regarding the accident and medical treatment, and that they did not receive the remaining claims. The main issue decided was whether the defendants were entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The holding of the case was that the defendants were entitled to summary judgment, as it was uncontroverted that the plaintiffs' assignors did not comply with the defendants' requests for statements, and the plaintiffs' submissions in opposition were insufficient to raise triable issues of fact. Therefore, the court reversed the order of the Civil Court and granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Reported in New York Official Reports at IK Med., P.C. v Travelers Prop. Cas. Ins. Co. (2006 NY Slip Op 51719(U))

IK Med., P.C. v Travelers Prop. Cas. Ins. Co. (2006 NY Slip Op 51719(U)) [*1]

IK Med., P.C. v Travelers Prop. Cas. Ins. Co.

2006 NY Slip Op 51719(U) [13 Misc 3d 128(A)]

Decided on September 13, 2006

Appellate Term, First 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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 September 13, 2006

APPELLATE TERM OF THE SUPREME COURT, FIRST DEPARTMENT

PRESENT: McCOOE, J.P., GANGEL-JACOB, J.

IK Medical, P.C. a/a/o Tahir Aliyev, Violet Aliyev, and Rafail Aliev, Plaintiff-Respondent,No.570350/05
against
Travelers Property Casualty Insurance Company, et. al., Defendants-Appellants.

Defendants appeal from so much of an order of the Civil Court, Bronx County (Larry Schachner, J.), entered January 31, 2005, as denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

PER CURIAM:

Order (Larry Schachner, J.), entered January 31, 2005, insofar as appealed from, reversed, without costs, and defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint granted. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.

In this action to recover assigned first party no-fault benefits, the defendant insurers established their entitlement to summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Defendants timely denied the claims in the amounts of $818.89, $620.97 and $1,060.01 on the stated ground that plaintiff’s assignors did not respond to their requests for statements regarding the accident and medical treatment. Since it is uncontroverted on this record that plaintiff’s assignors did not comply with defendants’ repeated requests for statements, defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the causes of action pertaining to the foregoing claims should have been granted (see 11 NYCRR 65.1-1 [d]; Inwood Hill Med., P.C. v General Assur. Co., 10 Misc 3d 18 [2005]).

Defendants are also entitled to summary judgment dismissing the remaining claims in the amounts of $793.24 and $604.34 on the ground of non-receipt of said claims, inasmuch as plaintiff’s submissions in opposition were insufficient to raise triable issues of fact.

This constitutes the decision and order of the court.
Decision Date: September 13, 2006