December 19, 2017
Masigla v Travelers Ins. Co. (2017 NY Slip Op 51797(U))
https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/masigla-v-travelers-ins-co-2017-ny-slip-op-51797u/
- Decided
- December 19, 2017
- Citation
- 2017 NY Slip Op 51797(U) · 58 Misc 3d 134(A)
- Posture
- Summary judgment
- Outcome
- Insurer prevailed
- Issues
- EUO no-show
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.
Reported in New York Official Reports at Masigla v Travelers Ins. Co. (2017 NY Slip Op 51797(U))
| Masigla v Travelers Ins. Co. |
| 2017 NY Slip Op 51797(U) [58 Misc 3d 134(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| This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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
2015-307 Q C
against
Travelers Insurance Company, Respondent.
The Rybak Firm, PLLC (Joseph D. DePalma, Esq.), for appellant. Law Offices of Aloy O. Ibuzor (William T. Angstreich, Esq.), for respondent.
Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Ulysses Bernard Leverett, J.), entered January 8, 2015. The order, insofar as appealed from as limited by the brief, granted the branches of defendant’s cross motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the second through fifth and seventh through ninth causes of action.
ORDERED that the order, insofar as appealed from, is affirmed, with $25 costs.
In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, plaintiff moved for summary judgment and defendant cross-moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Plaintiff appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of a January 8, 2015 order of the Civil Court as granted the branches of defendant’s cross motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the second through fifth and seventh through ninth causes of action on the ground that plaintiff had failed to appear for examinations under oath.
For the reasons stated in Masigla, as Assignee of Brumaire, Shimaine v Travelers Ins. Co. (__ Misc 3d ___, 2017 NY Slip Op _____ [appeal No. 2015-289 Q C], decided herewith), the order, insofar as appealed from, is affirmed.
PESCE, P.J., ALIOTTA and SOLOMON, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Paul Kenny
Chief Clerk
Decision Date: December 19, 2017
Similar decisions
- Masigla v 21st Century Ins. Co. (2019 NY Slip Op 50938(U))The insurer failed to establish through admissible evidence that Florida law applied or that the policy limits were exhausted.
- Masigla v ELRAC, Inc. (2017 NY Slip Op 51868(U))The defendant's summary judgment dismissal of the third, fifth and seventh causes of action was upheld on a presumption of timely denial mailing.
- Masigla v National Liab. & Fire Ins. Co. (2017 NY Slip Op 51847(U))The insurer failed to establish proper mailing of IME scheduling letters and was denied summary judgment on its IME nonappearance defense.
- Masigla v Omni Indem. Co. (2017 NY Slip Op 51767(U))The insurer's summary judgment motion asserting that it had not issued the policy in question was upheld on appeal.
- Masigla v Country Wide Ins. Co. (2017 NY Slip Op 51889(U))The insurer's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the claims for lack of timely accident notice was upheld.