June 17, 2022

Nasrinpay v Travelers Ins. Co. (2022 NY Slip Op 50611(U))

Headnote

The relevant facts considered by the court in this case were that the plaintiff, John A. Nasrinpay, was seeking to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits from the defendant, Travelers Insurance Company. The defendant had filed a motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, which was granted by the Civil Court, and the plaintiff's cross motion for summary judgment was denied. The main issue decided was whether the defendant's lack of coverage defense was established, prima facie, and whether the plaintiff had demonstrated the existence of a triable issue of fact. The holding of the court was that as the defendant had submitted an affidavit and documentary evidence establishing its lack of coverage defense, and the plaintiff had failed to demonstrate the existence of a triable issue of fact, the Civil Court properly granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment and denied the plaintiff's cross motion for summary judgment. Therefore, the order was affirmed.

Reported in New York Official Reports at Nasrinpay v Travelers Ins. Co. (2022 NY Slip Op 50611(U))

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

John A. Nasrinpay, as Assignee of Leach, Eric, Appellant,
against
Travelers Insurance Company, Respondent.

The Rybak Firm, PLLC (Damin J. Toell and Richard Rozhik of counsel), for appellant. Zaklukiewicz, Puzo & Morrissey, LLP (William E. Morrissey, Jr. of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Nicholas W. Moyne, J.), dated February 25, 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, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Civil Court which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and denied plaintiff’s cross motion for summary judgment.

In support of its motion, defendant submitted an affidavit and documentary evidence which established, prima facie, its lack of coverage defense (see Tam Med. Supply Corp. v Omni Indem. Co., 48 Misc 3d 142[A], 2015 NY Slip Op 51294[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2015]; Delta Diagnostic Radiology, P.C. v American Tr. Ins. Co., 44 Misc 3d 136[A], 2014 NY Slip Op 51240[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2014]; Vincent Med. Servs., P.C. v Omni Indem. Co., 42 Misc 3d 142[A], 2014 NY Slip Op 50224[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2014]; Great Health Care Chiropractic, P.C. v Omni Indem. Co., 40 Misc 3d 139[A], 2013 NY Slip Op 51450[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2013]). As plaintiff failed to demonstrate the existence of a triable issue of fact, the Civil Court properly granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and denied plaintiff’s cross motion for summary judgment.

Accordingly, the order is affirmed.

ALIOTTA, P.J., GOLIA and BUGGS, JJ., concur.

ENTER:
Paul Kenny
Chief Clerk
Decision Date: June 17, 2022