November 16, 2018

Pavlova v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (2018 NY Slip Op 51632(U))

Headnote

The court considered the fact that the plaintiff, a provider seeking first-party no-fault benefits, failed to appear for scheduled examinations under oath (EUOs) as requested by the defendant, an insurance company. The main issue was whether the defendant had provided sufficient proof that the plaintiff had failed to appear for the EUOs, and whether the defendant was required to provide objective reasons for requesting the EUOs in order to establish entitlement to summary judgment. The court held that the proof submitted by the defendant was sufficient to demonstrate that the plaintiff had failed to appear for the EUOs, and that the defendant was not required to set forth objective reasons for requesting the EUOs in order to establish entitlement to summary judgment. Therefore, the court affirmed the order of the Civil Court granting the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Reported in New York Official Reports at Pavlova v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (2018 NY Slip Op 51632(U))

Pavlova v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (2018 NY Slip Op 51632(U)) [*1]

Pavlova v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.

2018 NY Slip Op 51632(U) [61 Misc 3d 141(A)]

Decided on November 16, 2018

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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 November 16, 2018

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

PRESENT: : MICHAEL L. PESCE, P.J., THOMAS P. ALIOTTA, DAVID ELLIOT, JJ
2016-428 K C

Ksenia Pavlova, D.O., as Assignee of Scurry, Kevin, Appellant,
against
State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co., Respondent.

The Rybak Firm, PLLC (Damin J. Toell of counsel), for appellant. Rivkin Radler, LLP (Stuart M. Bodoff and Cheryl F. Korman of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Theresa M. Ciccotto, J.), entered January 26, 2016. The order granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

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 on the ground that plaintiff had failed to appear for duly scheduled examinations under oath (EUOs).

Contrary to plaintiff’s contention, the proof submitted by defendant in support of its motion was sufficient to demonstrate that plaintiff had failed to appear for the EUOs (see Stephen Fogel Psychological, P.C. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 35 AD3d 720 [2006]). Furthermore, defendant was not required to set forth objective reasons for requesting the EUOs in order to establish its prima facie entitlement to summary judgment, as an insurer need only demonstrate “as a matter of law that it twice duly demanded an [EUO] from the [provider] . . . that the [provider] twice failed to appear, and that the [insurer] issued a timely denial of the claim[]” (Interboro Ins. Co. v Clennon, 113 AD3d 596, 597 [2014]; see Parisien v Metlife Auto & Home, 54 Misc 3d 143[A], 2017 NY Slip Op 50208[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2017]; Palafox PT, P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 49 Misc 3d 144[A], 2015 NY Slip Op 51653[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2015]). [*2]Consequently, plaintiff has not provided any basis to disturb the Civil Court’s order.

Accordingly, the order is affirmed.

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

ENTER:
Paul Kenny
Chief Clerk
Decision Date: November 16, 2018