June 19, 2019

Orthoplus Prods., Inc. v Global Liberty Ins. Co. of N.Y. (2019 NY Slip Op 51003(U))

Headnote

The court considered the fact that the defendant-insurer established its prima facie entitlement to summary judgment dismissing the underlying first-party no-fault claims as premature. The main issue decided was whether the plaintiff had fully responded to the defendant's requests for additional verification, and whether the then-applicable thirty-day period to pay or deny the claims had begun to run. The holding of the court was that since verification remained outstanding, the claims were not overdue, and plaintiff's action was premature. Therefore, the court reversed the order of the Civil Court and granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, dismissing the complaint.

Reported in New York Official Reports at Orthoplus Prods., Inc. v Global Liberty Ins. Co. of N.Y. (2019 NY Slip Op 51003(U))

Orthoplus Prods., Inc. v Global Liberty Ins. Co. of N.Y. (2019 NY Slip Op 51003(U)) [*1]
Orthoplus Prods., Inc. v Global Liberty Ins. Co. of N.Y.
2019 NY Slip Op 51003(U) [64 Misc 3d 128(A)]
Decided on June 19, 2019
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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 June 19, 2019

SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT: Shulman, P.J., Cooper, Edmead, JJ.
570655/18
Orthoplus Products, Inc., a/a/o Atiana Colston, Plaintiff-Respondent,

against

Global Liberty Insurance Company of New York, Defendant-Appellant.

Defendant appeals from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County (Carolyn Walker-Diallo, J.), dated July 20, 2018, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Per Curiam.

Order (Carolyn Walker-Diallo, J.), dated July 20, 2018, reversed, with $10 costs, motion granted and complaint dismissed. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.

Defendant-insurer established its prima facie entitlement to summary judgment dismissing the underlying first-party no-fault claims as premature. Even accepting plaintiff’s assertion that it submitted certain verification documents to defendant, the record establishes that plaintiff did not fully respond to defendant’s requests for additional verification, which were properly mailed to plaintiff’s attorney as authorized by counsel’s prior correspondence to defendant (see St. Vincent’s Hosp. of Richmond v American Tr. Ins. Co., 299 AD2d 338 [2002]; GNK Med. Supply, Inc. v Tri-State Consumer Ins. Co., 37 Misc 3d 138[A], 2012 NY Slip Op 52195[U] [App Term, 1st Dept 2012]). Since verification remained outstanding, the then-applicable thirty-day period to pay or deny the claims did not begin to run, the claims were not overdue, and plaintiff’s action is premature (see St. Vincent Med. Care, P.C. v Country Wide Ins. Co., 80 AD3d 599, 600 [2011]; Westchester County Med. Ctr. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 262 AD2d 553 [1999]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.


I concur I concur I concur
Decision Date: June 19, 2019