May 10, 2019

Veraso Med. Supply Corp. v NY City Tr. Auth. (2019 NY Slip Op 50754(U))

Headnote

The provider's owner's affidavit raised a triable issue as to timely submission of the claim despite the transit authority's denial of receipt. The transit authority moved for summary judgment dismissing the assigned no-fault claim, and its claims examiner's affidavit established nonreceipt of the claim form. In opposition, the owner's affidavit created a presumption of timely mailing and receipt under Residential Holding Corp. v Scottsdale Ins. Co. The Appellate Term, Second Department, affirmed the order, insofar as appealed from, denying the transit authority's motion because the competing proof left a factual issue as to timely submission.

Reported in New York Official Reports at Veraso Med. Supply Corp. v NY City Tr. Auth. (2019 NY Slip Op 50754(U))

[*1]
Veraso Med. Supply Corp. v NY City Tr. Auth.
2019 NY Slip Op 50754(U) [63 Misc 3d 152(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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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
2017-3 K C

Veraso Medical Supply Corp., as Assignee of Lespinas, Harry, Respondent,

against

NY City Transit Authority, Appellant.


Jones Jones, LLP (Agnes Neiger of counsel), for appellant. Law Office of John Gallagher, PLLC, for respondent (no brief filed).

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Robin Kelly Sheares, J.), entered August 11, 2016. The order, insofar as appealed from, denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

ORDERED that the order, insofar as appealed from, is affirmed, with $25 costs.

In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, defendant appeals from so much of an order of the Civil Court as denied defendant’s motion which had sought summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that defendant had never received the claim form at issue.

The affidavit of defendant’s claims examiner established that defendant had not received the claim form at issue. 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 claim form had been timely mailed to, and received by, defendant (see Residential Holding Corp. v Scottsdale Ins. Co., 286 AD2d 679 [2001]; see also Compas Med., P.C. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 50 Misc 3d 146[A], 2016 NY Slip Op 50307[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2016]). In light of the foregoing, there is a triable issue of fact as to whether the claim at issue was timely submitted to defendant.

Accordingly, the order, insofar as appealed from, is affirmed.


PESCE, P.J., ALIOTTA and ELLIOT, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Paul Kenny
Chief Clerk
Decision Date: May 10, 2019