September 14, 2011

Multi-Specialty Pain Mgt. PC v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. (2011 NY Slip Op 51677(U))

Headnote

The court considered the defendant's appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Bronx County, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The main issue decided was whether the defendant properly mailed initial and follow-up notices of independent medical examinations (IMEs) to the assignor and her attorney, and if the assignor's failure to appear at the IME was reasonable. The court held that the defendant's submissions established prima facie evidence that it properly mailed the IME notices and that the assignor's failure to attend was not reasonable. Therefore, the court reversed the order, granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, and dismissed the complaint.

Reported in New York Official Reports at Multi-Specialty Pain Mgt. PC v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. (2011 NY Slip Op 51677(U))

Multi-Specialty Pain Mgt. PC v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. (2011 NY Slip Op 51677(U)) [*1]

Multi-Specialty Pain Mgt. PC v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co.

2011 NY Slip Op 51677(U) [32 Misc 3d 143(A)]

Decided on September 14, 2011

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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 14, 2011

APPELLATE TERM OF THE SUPREME COURT, FIRST DEPARTMENT

PRESENT: Torres, J.P., Shulman, Hunter, Jr., JJ
570282/11.

Multi-Specialty Pain Management PC a/a/o Jurie Burke, Plaintiff-Respondent, – –
against
New York Central Mutual Fire Insurance Company, Defendant-Appellant.

Defendant appeals from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Bronx County (Raul Cruz, J.), entered November 10, 2010, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Per Curiam.

Order (Raul Cruz, J.), entered November 10, 2010, reversed, with $10 costs, motion granted and complaint dismissed. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.

In this action to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, defendant’s submissions established prima facie that it properly mailed initial and follow-up notices of independent medical examinations (IMEs) to the assignor and her attorney, and that the assignor failed to appear (see Unitrin Advantage Ins. Co. v Bayshore Physical Therapy, PLLC, 82 AD3d 559, 560 [2011]; Stephen Fogel Psychological, P.C. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 35 AD3d 720, 721 [2006]). In opposition, plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue regarding the reasonableness of the IME requests or the assignor’s failure to attend (see Unitrin Advantage Ins. Co., 82 AD3d at 560; Inwood Hill Med., P.C. v General Assur. Co., 10 Misc 3d 18, 20 [2005]).

We have examined plaintiff’s remaining arguments and find them to be without merit.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.
Decision Date: September 14, 2011