April 25, 2016

Professional Health Imaging, P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (2016 NY Slip Op 50700(U))

Headnote

The court considered the fact that the plaintiff, Professional Health Imaging, P.C., was seeking to recover first-party no-fault benefits from the defendant, State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co. Defendant moved for summary judgment to dismiss the complaint on the grounds that the plaintiff had failed to appear for scheduled examinations under oath. Plaintiff cross-moved for summary judgment or, in the alternative, to strike defendant's answer and affirmative defenses, and to compel the defendant to respond to discovery demands. The main issue decided was whether the trial court's order granting defendant's motion and denying plaintiff's cross motion should be affirmed. The holding of the case was that for the reasons stated in a related case, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's order.

Reported in New York Official Reports at Professional Health Imaging, P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (2016 NY Slip Op 50700(U))

Professional Health Imaging, P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (2016 NY Slip Op 50700(U)) [*1]

Professional Health Imaging, P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.

2016 NY Slip Op 50700(U) [51 Misc 3d 143(A)]

Decided on April 25, 2016

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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 April 25, 2016

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

PRESENT: : ELLIOT, J.P., WESTON and SOLOMON, JJ.
2014-2137 K C

Professional Health Imaging, P.C., as Assignee of GLENNS SMITH, Appellant,
against
State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co., Respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Carol Ruth Feinman, J.), entered July 8, 2014. The order granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and denied plaintiff’s cross motion for summary judgment or, in the alternative, to strike defendant’s answer and affirmative defenses, and to compel defendant to respond to discovery demands.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with $25 costs.

In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that plaintiff had failed to appear for duly scheduled examinations under oath. Plaintiff cross-moved for summary judgment or, in the alternative, to strike defendant’s answer and affirmative defenses, and to compel defendant to respond to discovery demands. Plaintiff appeals from an order of the Civil Court granting defendant’s motion and denying plaintiff’s cross motion.

For the reasons stated in Professional Health Imaging, P.C., as Assignee of Jennifer Donofrio v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (____ Misc 3d _____, 2016 NY Slip Op ______ [appeal No. 2014-1991 K C], decided herewith), the order is affirmed.

Elliot, J.P., Weston and Solomon, JJ., concur.

Decision Date: April 25, 2016