September 15, 2016

TAM Med. Supply Corp. v 21st Century Ins. Co. (2016 NY Slip Op 51319(U))

Headnote

The court considered a case in which TAM Medical Supply Corp, as the assignee of Markens Belfort, was seeking to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits from 21st Century Insurance Company. The main issue decided was whether the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment should be denied and the defendant's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint should be granted, due to the plaintiff failing to provide requested verification. The court held that the defendant's submissions were sufficient to give rise to a presumption that the initial and follow-up verification requests had been properly mailed, and demonstrated that it had not received the requested verification. As a result, the court found that the action was premature, and thus affirmed the order of the Civil Court denying the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and granting the defendant's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Reported in New York Official Reports at TAM Med. Supply Corp. v 21st Century Ins. Co. (2016 NY Slip Op 51319(U))

TAM Med. Supply Corp. v 21st Century Ins. Co. (2016 NY Slip Op 51319(U)) [*1]

TAM Med. Supply Corp. v 21st Century Ins. Co.

2016 NY Slip Op 51319(U) [53 Misc 3d 127(A)]

Decided on September 15, 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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 September 15, 2016

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

PRESENT: : PESCE, P.J., ALIOTTA and SOLOMON, JJ.
2014-355 Q C

TAM Medical Supply Corp., as Assignee of Markens Belfort, Appellant,
against
21st Century Insurance Company, Respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Cheree A. Buggs, J.), entered January 10, 2014. The order denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and granted defendant’s cross 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 denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, and granted defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as premature because plaintiff had failed to provide requested verification.

Contrary to plaintiff’s only contentions with respect to defendant’s cross motion, defendant’s submissions were sufficient to give rise to a presumption that the initial and follow-up verification requests had been properly mailed (see St. Vincent’s Hosp. of Richmond v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 50 AD3d 1123 [2008]), and to demonstrate that it had not received the requested verification and, thus, that the action is premature (see Central Suffolk Hosp. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 24 AD3d 492 [2005]). Consequently, plaintiff has shown no basis to disturb the Civil Court’s order.

Accordingly, the order is affirmed.

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

Decision Date: September 15, 2016