Tyorkin v GEICO Gen. Ins. Co. (2017 NY Slip Op 50364(U))

Decided on March 29, 2017

SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 2nd, 11th & 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS

Law Offices of Emilia I. Rutigliano, P.C., Marina Josovich, Esq., for appellant.

Law Office of Printz & Goldstein, Lawrence J. Chanice, Esq., for respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Terrence C. O’Connor, J.), entered March 26, 2015. 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.

In support of its cross motion, defendant established that its denial of claim form had been timely mailed (see St. Vincent’s Hosp. of Richmond v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 50 AD3d 1123 [2008]). Furthermore, contrary to plaintiff’s argument, the affirmed peer review report submitted by defendant demonstrated, prima facie, that the injury treated by plaintiff was not causally related to the accident in question. Thus, defendant made a prima facie showing of its entitlement to summary judgment dismissing the complaint. In opposition to the motion, plaintiff submitted an affidavit from a doctor which failed to meaningfully refer to, let alone sufficiently rebut, the conclusions set forth in the peer review report (see Pan Chiropractic, P.C. v Mercury Ins. Co., 24 Misc 3d 136[A], 2009 NY Slip Op 51495[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2009]). In light of the foregoing, we need not consider the parties’ remaining contentions.

Accordingly, the order is affirmed.

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

Decision Date: March 29, 2017