December 6, 2019

Parisien v Nationwide Ins. (2019 NY Slip Op 51980(U))

Headnote

The court considered an appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County, which granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and denied the plaintiff's cross motion for summary judgment. The main issue decided was whether the proof submitted by the defendant in support of its motion was sufficient to give rise to a presumption that the denial of claim forms had been properly mailed. The holding of the court was that the proof submitted by the defendant was indeed sufficient to give rise to such a presumption, and therefore the order granting the defendant's motion for summary judgment was affirmed.

Reported in New York Official Reports at Parisien v Nationwide Ins. (2019 NY Slip Op 51980(U))

Parisien v Nationwide Ins. (2019 NY Slip Op 51980(U)) [*1]

Parisien v Nationwide Ins.

2019 NY Slip Op 51980(U) [65 Misc 3d 158(A)]

Decided on December 6, 2019

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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 6, 2019

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

PRESENT: : MICHAEL L. PESCE, P.J., THOMAS P. ALIOTTA, BERNICE D. SIEGAL, JJ
2018-1579 K C

Jules Francois Parisien, M.D., as Assignee of Gaddy, Matthew L., Appellant,
against
Nationwide Ins., Respondent.

The Rybak Firm, PLLC (Damin J. Toell of counsel), for appellant. Law Office of Kevin J. Philbin (Kevon Lewis of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Joy F. Campanelli, J.), entered March 28, 2018. 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.

Contrary to plaintiff’s sole appellate argument with respect to defendant’s motion for summary judgment, the proof submitted by defendant in support of its motion was sufficient to give rise to a presumption that the denial of claim forms had been properly mailed (see St. Vincent’s Hosp. of Richmond v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 50 AD3d 1123 [2008]).

Accordingly, the order is affirmed.

PESCE, P.J., ALIOTTA and SIEGAL, JJ., concur.

ENTER:
Paul Kenny
Chief Clerk
Decision Date: December 6, 2019