November 18, 2022

John A. Nasrinpay 2 v Nationwide Affinity Ins. Co. of Am. (2022 NY Slip Op 51241(U))

https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/john-a-nasrinpay-2-v-nationwide-affinity-ins-co-of-am-2022-ny-slip-op51241u/

Court: Appellate Term, Second Department
Decided: November 18, 2022
Citation: 2022 NY Slip Op 51241(U) · 77 Misc 3d 132(A)
Posture: Summary judgment
Outcome: Insurer prevailed
Issues: Verification requests
Legal questions: Outstanding verification and premature actions (see the maps)

Cite as

John A. Nasrinpay 2 v Nationwide Affinity Ins. Co. of Am., 77 Misc 3d 132(A), 2022 NY Slip Op 51241(U) (App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2022)

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 dismissing claims for failure to provide requested verification was affirmed. The Appellate Term, Second Department, affirmed the Civil Court, Kings County, order granting the insurer's motion and denying the provider's cross motion for summary judgment for the reasons stated in Remedy Chiropractic, P.C. v Nationwide Ins., without providing independent reasoning.

Reported in New York Official Reports at John A. Nasrinpay 2 v Nationwide Affinity Ins. Co. of Am. (2022 NY Slip Op 51241(U))

[*1]

John A. Nasrinpay 2 v Nationwide Affinity Ins. Co. of Am.

2022 NY Slip Op 51241(U) [77 Misc 3d 132(A)]

Decided on November 18, 2022

Appellate Term, Second Department

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

As corrected in part through December 19, 2022; it will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on November 18, 2022

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

PRESENT: : THOMAS P. ALIOTTA, P.J., MICHELLE WESTON, WAVNY TOUSSAINT, JJ
2021-792 K C

John A. Nasrinpay 2, as Assignee of Nelson-Lutchman, Cymone, Appellant,
against
Nationwide Affinity Insurance Company of America, Respondent.

The Rybak Firm, PLLC (Damin J. Toell of counsel), for appellant. Hollander Legal Group , P.C. (Allan S. Hollander and Christopher Volpe of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Sandra E. Roper, J.), dated December 2, 2021. 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, defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that plaintiff had failed to provide requested verification. Plaintiff opposed the motion and cross-moved for summary judgment. By order dated December 2, 2021, the Civil Court granted defendant’s motion and denied plaintiff’s cross motion.

For the reasons stated in Remedy Chiropractic, P.C. v Nationwide Ins. (76 Misc 3d 135[A], 2022 NY Slip Op 50935[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2022]), the order is affirmed.

ALIOTTA, P.J., WESTON and TOUSSAINT, JJ., concur.

ENTER:
Paul Kenny
Chief Clerk
Decision Date: November 18, 2022

Legal questions

A question of no-fault law this decision rules on, from our Legal Questions pages. Bars count the decisions on the question by year and court, coloured by category; circles are this decision and the decisions on the question it cites or that cite it. Point at a bar or circle for details. The categories and summaries are Beynenson Law’s classification, made by a language model and checked by a second reading.

Outstanding verification and premature actions

Open the full map

Did unanswered verification requests make the provider’s claim premature, or justify denying it for nonresponse?

This decision: Timely requests went unanswered; the claim is not overdue and the action is premature

Affirmed dismissal of the complaint on the insurer's defense that the provider failed to provide requested verification, adopting the reasoning of a companion decision.

Premature: verification outstandingNonresponse denial upheldTriable issueInsurer's showing failsProvider compliedThis decisionCites it or cited by itCited or followed

Of the 385 decisions on this question in the Second Department courts and the Court of Appeals, 153 (this one included) are in the same category.

Cited in this decision

A label shows how this decision treated the case it cites.

Remedy Chiropractic, P.C. v Nationwide Ins. (2022 NY Slip Op 50935(U)) FollowedThe provider failed to raise a factual issue that it supplied outstanding verification or reasonably justified withholding it.

Similar decisions

Nasrinpay v Travelers Ins. Co. (2022 NY Slip Op 50611(U))The insurer's summary judgment motion was granted on its lack-of-coverage defense, and the provider's cross motion was denied.
New York Manual, P.T., P.C. v Nationwide Affinity Ins. Co. of Am. (2023 NY Slip Op 50281(U))The provider failed to raise a triable issue that it supplied requested verification or reasonably justified noncompliance.
John A. Nasrinpay 2 v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (2025 NY Slip Op 51833(U))The insurer's employee affidavits supported a presumption that the EUO scheduling letters and denial forms were timely mailed.
Island Life Chiropractic Pain Care, PLLC v Nationwide Ins. (2020 NY Slip Op 51359(U))The provider's challenges to the insurer's summary judgment motion were unpreserved because they were raised for the first time on appeal.
First Spine Chiropractic of NY, P.C. v Nationwide Affinity Ins. Co. of Am. (2022 NY Slip Op 51252(U))The insurer's summary judgment dismissing claims for the assignor's EUO nonappearances was affirmed on proof of timely denial.