June 17, 2022

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

https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/nasrinpay-v-travelers-ins-co-2022-ny-slip-op-50611u/

Court: Appellate Term, Second Department
Decided: June 17, 2022
Citation: 2022 NY Slip Op 50611(U)
Posture: Summary judgment
Outcome: Insurer prevailed
Issues: Staged accidents, lack of coverage

Cite as

Nasrinpay v Travelers Ins. Co., 2022 NY Slip Op 50611(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 motion was granted on its lack-of-coverage defense, and the provider's cross motion was denied. The Appellate Term, Second Department, affirmed because the insurer's affidavit and documentary evidence established that defense prima facie and the provider raised no triable issue.

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

Cited in this decision

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

Tam Med. Supply Corp. v Omni Indem. Co. (2015 NY Slip Op 51294(U)) FollowedThe provider's new deposition evidence failed to defeat the insurer's showing that it had not issued the policy covering the accident.
Delta Diagnostic Radiology, P.C. v American Tr. Ins. Co. (2014 NY Slip Op 51240(U)) FollowedThe insurer's examiner affidavit established that it had not issued a policy covering the accident.
Vincent Med. Servs., P.C. v Omni Indem. Co. (2014 NY Slip Op 50224(U)) FollowedThe insurer established that the provider had sued the wrong carrier because another insurer had issued the policy covering the accident.
Great Health Care Chiropractic, P.C. v Omni Indem. Co. (2013 NY Slip Op 51450(U)) FollowedThe defendant insurer established that the provider sued the wrong carrier because another insurer issued the policy covering the accident.

Similar decisions

John A. Nasrinpay 2 v Nationwide Affinity Ins. Co. of Am. (2022 NY Slip Op 51241(U))The insurer's summary judgment dismissing claims for failure to provide requested verification was affirmed.
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.
Nassau Chiropractic Servs., P.C. v Travelers Indem. Co. (2022 NY Slip Op 50933(U))The insurer established timely mailing of EUO notices and the denial, and the provider's failure to appear for the EUOs. Office-practice affidavits proved mailing, and affirmations from attorneys present to conduct the EUOs established the nonappearances.
Domny Med. Servs., P.C. v Travelers Ins. Co. (2020 NY Slip Op 51328(U))The insurer's summary judgment motion was granted after the record was found sufficient to establish mailing of EUO notices and denials.
Gentlecare Ambulatory Anesthesia Servs.; Lyonel F. Paul M.D. v Hereford Ins. Co. (2020 NY Slip Op 51379(U))A lack-of-coverage defense is not precluded by defects in, or untimeliness of, an insurer's denial of claim.