May 10, 2019

Solution Bridge, Inc. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (2019 NY Slip Op 50739(U))

Headnote

The relevant facts the court considered in this case were that Solution Bridge, Inc. was seeking to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits from State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. State Farm moved for summary judgment dismissing the first cause of action on the grounds that Solution Bridge failed to provide requested verification. The main issue decided was whether Solution Bridge provided sufficient evidence to show that the requested verification had been mailed to, and received by, State Farm. The holding of the case was that the affidavit submitted by Solution Bridge was sufficient to give rise to a presumption that the verification had been provided, creating a triable issue of fact. Therefore, the court reversed the order and denied State Farm's motion for summary judgment.

Reported in New York Official Reports at Solution Bridge, Inc. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (2019 NY Slip Op 50739(U))

Solution Bridge, Inc. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (2019 NY Slip Op 50739(U)) [*1]

Solution Bridge, Inc. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.

2019 NY Slip Op 50739(U) [63 Misc 3d 150(A)]

Decided on May 10, 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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 May 10, 2019

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

PRESENT: : MICHAEL L. PESCE, P.J., THOMAS P. ALIOTTA, DAVID ELLIOT, JJ
2016-1461 K C

Solution Bridge, Inc., as Assignee of Guzman, Ramon, Appellant,
against
State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co., Respondent.

The Rybak Firm, PLLC (Damin J. Toell of counsel), for appellant. De Martini & Yi, LLP (Bryan Visnius of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Robin Kelly Sheares, J.), entered April 15, 2016. The order, insofar as appealed from as limited by the brief, granted the branch of defendant’s motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the first cause of action.

ORDERED that the order, insofar as appealed from, is reversed, with $30 costs, and the branch of defendant’s motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the first cause of action is denied.

In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, plaintiff appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Civil Court as granted the branch of defendant’s motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the first cause of action on the ground that plaintiff had failed to provide requested verification.

Plaintiff correctly argues that the affidavit it submitted in opposition to defendant’s motion was sufficient to give rise to a presumption that the requested verification had been mailed to, and received by, defendant (see St. Vincent’s Hosp. of Richmond v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 50 AD3d 1123 [2008]), and thus that there is a triable issue of fact as to whether the verification had been provided.

Accordingly, the order, insofar as appealed from, is reversed and the branch of defendant’s motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the first cause of action is denied.

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

ENTER:
Paul Kenny
Chief Clerk
Decision Date: May 10, 2019