November 7, 2025

John A. Nasrinpay 2 v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (2025 NY Slip Op 51833(U))

Headnote

In this case, the court considered relevant facts surrounding the plaintiff's claim for assigned first-party no-fault benefits, notably that the plaintiff's assignor failed to attend scheduled examinations under oath (EUOs). The main issues decided included whether the defendant's motion for summary judgment, which sought to dismiss the complaint due to the assignor's non-compliance, was justified and whether the plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment should have been granted. The court held that the defendant's affidavits were adequate to establish a presumption that the notices for the EUOs were properly mailed, thereby supporting the defendant's case. As a result, the court affirmed the lower court's order dismissing the complaint and denying the plaintiff's cross-motion.

Reported in New York Official Reports at John A. Nasrinpay 2 v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (2025 NY Slip Op 51833(U))

[*1]

John A. Nasrinpay 2 v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.

2025 NY Slip Op 51833(U)

Decided on November 7, 2025

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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 November 7, 2025

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

PRESENT: : LISA S. OTTLEY, J.P., WAVNY TOUSSAINT, MARINA CORA MUNDY, JJ
2025-16 K C

John A. Nasrinpay 2, as Assignee of Long, Norma, Appellant,

against

State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co., Respondent.

The Rybak Firm, PLLC (Damin J. Toell and Richard Rozhik of counsel), for appellant. Rivkin Radler, LLP (Stuart M. Bodoff of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Odessa Kennedy, J.), dated September 9, 2024. 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 (Odessa Kennedy, J.) dated September 9, 2024 granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that plaintiff’s assignor failed to appear for duly scheduled examinations under oath (EUOs), and denying plaintiff’s cross-motion for summary judgment.

Contrary to plaintiff’s contention, the affidavits of defendant’s employees were sufficient to give rise to a presumption that the EUO scheduling letters and denial of claim forms had been timely mailed (see St. Vincent’s Hosp. of Richmond v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 50 AD3d 1123 [2008]; Horizon P.T. Care, P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 78 Misc 3d 133[A], 2023 NY Slip Op 50442[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2023]). In view of the foregoing, plaintiff has demonstrated no basis to disturb the order granting defendant’s motion and denying plaintiff’s cross-motion.

Accordingly, the order is affirmed.

OTTLEY, J.P., TOUSSAINT and MUNDY, JJ., concur.

ENTER:
Paul Kenny
Chief Clerk
Decision Date: November 7, 2025