June 6, 2016

Renelique v Travelers Ins. Co. (2016 NY Slip Op 50911(U))

Headnote

The relevant facts the court considered in this case were that the plaintiff, Pierre Jean Jacques Renelique, was seeking to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits from Travelers Insurance Company. The main issue decided by the court was whether the action was premature because the plaintiff had failed to provide requested verification. The court ultimately held that there was a triable issue of fact as to whether the action was premature, as the plaintiff had submitted an affidavit from the owner that gave rise to a presumption that the requested verification had been mailed to, and received by, the defendant. As a result, the court reversed the order granting summary judgment to the defendant and denied their motion to dismiss the complaint.

Reported in New York Official Reports at Renelique v Travelers Ins. Co. (2016 NY Slip Op 50911(U))

Renelique v Travelers Ins. Co. (2016 NY Slip Op 50911(U)) [*1]

Renelique v Travelers Ins. Co.

2016 NY Slip Op 50911(U) [52 Misc 3d 127(A)]

Decided on June 6, 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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 June 6, 2016

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

PRESENT: : PESCE, P.J., ALIOTTA and SOLOMON, JJ.
2013-1747 Q C

Pierre Jean Jacques Renelique, as Assignee of ALLEN HAYNES, Appellant,
against
Travelers Insurance Company, Respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (William A. Viscovich, J.), entered June 27, 2013. The order granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

ORDERED that the order is reversed, with $30 costs, and defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is denied.

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 the action was premature because plaintiff had failed to provide requested verification. By order entered June 27, 2013, the Civil Court granted defendant’s motion.

In support of its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, defendant established that it had timely mailed its verification request and follow-up verification request (see St. Vincent’s Hosp. of Richmond v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 50 AD3d 1123 [2008]). Defendant also demonstrated prima facie that it had not received the requested verification and, thus, that plaintiff’s action is premature (see Central Suffolk Hosp. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 24 AD3d 492 [2005]). However, in opposition to the motion, plaintiff submitted an affidavit from plaintiff’s owner, which affidavit was sufficient to give rise to a presumption that the requested verification had been mailed to, and received by, defendant (see Residential Holding Corp. v Scottsdale Ins. Co., 286 AD2d 679 [2001]). In light of the foregoing, there is a triable issue of fact as to whether this action is premature (see Healing Health Prods., Inc. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 44 Misc 3d 59 [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2014]).

Accordingly, the order is reversed and defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is denied.

Pesce, P.J., Aliotta and Solomon, JJ., concur.

Decision Date: June 06, 2016