Reported in New York Official Reports at Kappa Med., P.C. v Chubb Indem. Ins. Co. (2017 NY Slip Op 51199(U))
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 2d, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
against
Chubb Indemnity Insurance Company, Appellant.
Matthew Brew & Associates, LLC (Matthew Brew, Esq.), for appellant. Law Office of Cohen & Jaffe, LLP (Aaron J. Perretta, Esq.), for respondent.
Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Ulyssses Bernard Leverett, J.), entered July 22, 2014. The order, insofar as appealed from, denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and, upon denying plaintiff’s cross motion for summary judgment, made, in effect, CPLR 3212 (g) findings in plaintiff’s favor.
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 moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that it had timely and properly denied the claims at issue based on the failure of plaintiff’s assignor to appear for duly scheduled independent medical examinations (IMEs), and plaintiff cross-moved for summary judgment. Defendant appeals from so much of an order of the Civil Court as denied defendant’s motion and, upon denying plaintiff’s cross motion, made, in effect, CPLR 3212 (g) findings in plaintiff’s favor.
In support of its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, defendant submitted an affidavit from the doctor who was to perform the IMEs which failed to demonstrate upon personal knowledge (see Stephen Fogel Psychological, P.C. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 35 AD3d 720 [2006]), or by any other appropriate means (see e.g. Quality Psychological Servs., P.C. v Interboro Mut. Indem. Ins. Co., 36 Misc 3d 146[A], 2012 NY Slip Op 51628[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2012]), that plaintiff’s assignor had failed to appear for the IMEs. Thus, defendant failed to establish its entitlement to summary judgment dismissing the complaint (see Stephen Fogel Psychological, P.C., 35 AD3d 720).
Furthermore, defendant fails to articulate a sufficient basis to strike the Civil Court’s CPLR 3212 (g) findings in plaintiff’s favor (see EMC Health Prods., Inc. v Geico Ins. Co., 43 Misc 3d 139[A], 2014 NY Slip Op 50786[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists [*2]2014]).
Accordingly, the order, insofar as appealed from, is affirmed.
PESCE, P.J., ALIOTTA and SOLOMON, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Paul Kenny
Chief Clerk
Decision Date: September 15, 2017
Reported in New York Official Reports at Charles Deng Acupuncture, P.C. v 21st Century Ins. Co. (2017 NY Slip Op 51197(U))
| Charles Deng Acupuncture, P.C. v 21st Century Ins. Co. |
| 2017 NY Slip Op 51197(U) [57 Misc 3d 131(A)] |
| Decided on September 15, 2017 |
| 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, 2017
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 2d, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : MICHAEL L. PESCE, P.J., THOMAS P. ALIOTTA, MARTIN M. SOLOMON, JJ
2014-2019 Q C
against
21st Century Insurance Company, Appellant-Respondent.
Law Office of Bryan M. Rothenberg (Sharon A. Brennan, Esq.), for appellant-respondent. The Rybak Firm, PLLC (Damin J. Toell, Esq.), for respondent-appellant.
Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Richard G. Latin, J.), entered July 28, 2014. The order, insofar as appealed from by defendant and as limited by its brief, granted the branch of plaintiff’s motion seeking summary judgment on so much of the complaint as sought to recover upon a claim for $80 and denied the branch of defendant’s cross motion seeking summary judgment dismissing that portion of the complaint. The order, insofar as cross-appealed from by plaintiff, denied the branches of plaintiff’s motion seeking summary judgment on the remainder of the complaint and granted the branches of defendant’s cross motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the remainder of the complaint.
ORDERED that the cross appeal is dismissed as abandoned; and it is further,
ORDERED that the order, insofar as reviewed, is modified by providing that the branch of plaintiff’s motion seeking summary judgment on so much of the complaint as sought to recover upon a claim for $80 is denied; as so modified, the order is affirmed, without costs.
Insofar as is relevant to this appeal in an action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, plaintiff moved for summary judgment and defendant cross-moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Defendant appeals from so much of an order of the Civil Court entered July 28, 2014 as granted the branch of plaintiff’s motion seeking summary judgment on so much of the complaint as sought to recover upon a claim for $80 and denied the branch of defendant’s cross motion seeking summary judgment dismissing that portion of the complaint. Plaintiff’s cross appeal, from so much of the order as denied the remaining branches of plaintiff’s motion and granted the remaining branches of defendant’s cross motion, is dismissed as abandoned.
On this record, there is a triable issue of fact as to whether defendant properly denied plaintiff’s claim for $80.
Accordingly, the order, insofar as reviewed, is modified by providing that the branch of [*2]plaintiff’s motion seeking summary judgment on so much of the complaint as sought to recover upon a claim for $80 is denied.
PESCE, P.J., ALIOTTA and SOLOMON, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Paul Kenny
Chief Clerk
Decision Date: September 15, 2017
Reported in New York Official Reports at Tam Med. Supply Corp. v Hereford Ins. Co. (2017 NY Slip Op 51196(U))
| Tam Med. Supply Corp. v Hereford Ins. Co. |
| 2017 NY Slip Op 51196(U) [57 Misc 3d 131(A)] |
| Decided on September 15, 2017 |
| 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, 2017
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 2d, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : MICHAEL L. PESCE, P.J., THOMAS P. ALIOTTA, MARTIN M. SOLOMON, JJ
2014-1901 K C
against
Hereford Insurance Co., Appellant.
Law Office of Lawrence R. Miles (Lawrence R. Miles, Esq.), for appellant. The Rybak Firm, PLLC (Joseph D. DePalma, Esq.), for respondent.
Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Pamela L. Fisher, J.), entered June 10, 2014. 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 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 10, 2014, the Civil Court denied defendant’s motion, but held, in effect pursuant to CPLR 3212 (g), that the only issue for trial was whether the verification remained outstanding. Defendant appeals from so much of the order as denied its motion.
While defendant made a prima facie showing that it had not received the requested verification, the affidavit submitted by plaintiff 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]). As a triable issue of fact exists as to whether the requested verification remained outstanding, the Civil Court properly denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as premature (see Compas Med., P.C. v Praetorian Ins. Co., 49 Misc 3d 152[A], 2015 NY Slip Op 51776[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2015]).
Accordingly, the order, insofar as appealed from, is affirmed.
PESCE, P.J., ALIOTTA and SOLOMON, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Paul Kenny
Chief Clerk
Decision Date: September 15, 2017
Reported in New York Official Reports at Compas Med., P.C. v American Tr. Ins. Co. (2017 NY Slip Op 51194(U))
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 2d, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
against
American Transit Ins. Co., Respondent.
The Rybak Firm, PLLC (Damin J. Toell, Esq.), for appellant. Law Office of Jason Tenenbaum, P.C. (Jason Tenenbaum, Esq.), for respondent.
Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Richard G. Latin, J.), entered July 2, 2014. The order, insofar as appealed from, denied the branches of plaintiff’s motion seeking summary judgment on the first through fourth, sixth and seventh causes of action, and granted the branches of defendant’s cross motion seeking summary judgment dismissing those causes of action.
ORDERED that the order, insofar as appealed from, is modified by providing that the branches of defendant’s cross motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the first through fourth, sixth and seventh causes of action are denied; as so modified, the order, insofar as appealed from, is affirmed, without costs.
In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Civil Court as denied the branches of plaintiff’s motion seeking summary judgment on the first through fourth, sixth and seventh causes of action, and granted the branches of defendant’s cross motion seeking summary judgment dismissing those causes of action on the ground that they were premature because plaintiff had failed to provide requested verification.
Contrary to plaintiff’s contention, defendant demonstrated prima facie that it had not received the requested verification and, thus, that the causes of action at issue are premature (see Central Suffolk Hosp. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 24 AD3d 492 [2005]). However, as plaintiff further argues, the affidavit submitted by plaintiff in opposition to defendant’s cross 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]). In light of the foregoing, there is a triable issue of fact as to whether the causes of action at issue are premature (see Compas Med., P.C. v Praetorian Ins. Co., 49 Misc 3d 152[A], 2015 NY Slip Op 51776[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud [*2]Dists 2015]).
Accordingly, the order, insofar as appealed from, is modified by providing that the branches of defendant’s cross motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the first through fourth, sixth and seventh causes of action are denied.
PESCE, P.J., ALIOTTA and SOLOMON, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Paul Kenny
Chief Clerk
Decision Date: September 15, 2017
Reported in New York Official Reports at Compas Med., P.C. v American Tr. Ins. Co. (2017 NY Slip Op 51193(U))
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 2d, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
against
American Transit Ins. Co., Respondent.
The Rybak Firm, PLLC (Damin J. Toell, Esq.), for appellant. Law Office of Jason Tenenbaum, P.C. (Jason Tenenbaum, Esq.), for respondent.
Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Richard G. Latin, J.), entered July 3, 2014. The order, insofar as appealed from, denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and, in effect, granted the branches of defendant’s cross motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the first, second, fifth, sixth and seventh causes of action based upon plaintiff’s assignor’s alleged eligibility for workers’ compensation benefits, to the extent of providing that if plaintiff failed to file proof, within 90 days, showing that it had filed the claims underlying those causes of action with the Workers’ Compensation Board, those causes of action shall be dismissed.
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, plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Civil Court as denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, and, in effect, granted the branches of defendant’s cross motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the first, second, fifth, sixth and seventh causes of action based upon plaintiff’s assignor’s alleged eligibility for workers’ compensation benefits, to the extent of providing that if plaintiff failed to file proof, within 90 days, showing that it had filed the claims underlying those causes of action with the Workers’ Compensation Board, those causes of action shall be dismissed.
Contrary to plaintiff’s argument, the proof submitted by defendant was sufficient to raise an issue of fact as to whether defendant had ever received the claims underlying the third and fourth causes of action; thus, the Civil Court correctly denied the branches of plaintiff’s motion seeking summary judgment on these causes of action.
For the reasons stated in Compas Med., P.C., as Assignee of Pierre, Jean v American Tr. Ins. Co. (___ Misc 3d ___, 2017 NY Slip Op _____ [appeal No. 2014-1830 Q C], decided herewith), we find that the remainder of the order, insofar as appealed from, was also correctly [*2]decided.
In light of the foregoing, plaintiff’s remaining contentions are academic.
Accordingly, the order, insofar as appealed from, is affirmed.
PESCE, P.J., ALIOTTA and SOLOMON, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Paul Kenny
Chief Clerk
Decision Date: September 15, 2017
Reported in New York Official Reports at Compas Med., P.C. v American Tr. Ins. Co. (2017 NY Slip Op 51192(U))
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 2d, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
against
American Transit Ins. Co., Respondent.
The Rybak Firm, PLLC (Damin J. Toell, Esq.), for appellant. Law Office of Jason Tenenbaum, P.C. (Jason Tenenbaum, Esq.), for respondent.
Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Richard G. Latin, J.), entered July 3, 2014. The order, insofar as appealed from and as limited by the brief, denied the branches of plaintiff’s motion seeking summary judgment on the first, second, fourth and fifth causes of action, and, in effect, granted the branches of defendant’s cross motion seeking summary judgment dismissing those causes of action based upon plaintiff’s assignor’s alleged eligibility for workers’ compensation benefits, to the extent of providing that if plaintiff failed to file proof, within 90 days, showing that it had filed the claims underlying those causes of action with the Workers’ Compensation Board, those causes of action shall be dismissed.
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, plaintiff appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Civil Court as denied the branches of plaintiff’s motion seeking summary judgment on the first, second, fourth and fifth causes of action, and, in effect, granted the branches of defendant’s cross motion seeking summary judgment dismissing those causes of action based upon plaintiff’s assignor’s alleged eligibility for workers’ compensation benefits, to the extent of providing that if plaintiff failed to file proof, within 90 days, showing that it had filed the claims underlying those causes of action with the Workers’ Compensation Board, those causes of action shall be dismissed.
Contrary to plaintiff’s argument on appeal, defendant proffered sufficient evidence to support its contention that there was an issue as to whether plaintiff’s assignor had been acting as an employee at the time of the accident, and that, therefore, workers’ compensation benefits might be available (see e.g. Arce Med. & Diagnostic Svce v American Tr. Ins. Co., 39 Misc 3d 134[A], 2013 NY Slip Op 50531[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2013]; Jamaica Med. Supply, Inc. v American Tr. Ins. Co., 34 Misc 3d 133[A], 2011 NY Slip Op 52371[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2011]), which issue must be resolved [*2]in the first instance by the Workers’ Compensation Board (see O’Rourke v Long, 41 NY2d 219, 225 [1976]; Arce Med. & Diagnostic Svce, 39 Misc 3d 134[A], 2013 NY Slip Op 50531[U]; Jamaica Med. Supply, Inc., 34 Misc 3d 133[A], 2011 NY Slip Op 52371[U]).
Accordingly, the order, insofar as appealed from, is affirmed.
PESCE, P.J., ALIOTTA and SOLOMON, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Paul Kenny
Chief Clerk
Decision Date: September 15, 2017
Reported in New York Official Reports at Compas Med., P.C. v American Tr. Ins. Co. (2017 NY Slip Op 51191(U))
| Compas Med., P.C. v American Tr. Ins. Co. |
| 2017 NY Slip Op 51191(U) [57 Misc 3d 130(A)] |
| Decided on September 15, 2017 |
| 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, 2017
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 2d, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : MICHAEL L. PESCE, P.J., THOMAS P. ALIOTTA, MARTIN M. SOLOMON, JJ
2014-1826 Q C
against
American Transit Ins. Co., Respondent.
The Rybak Firm, PLLC (Damin J. Toell, Esq.), for appellant. Law Office of Jason Tenenbaum, P.C. (Jason Tenenbaum, Esq.), for respondent.
Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (William A. Viscovich, J.), entered June 30, 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 on the ground, among others, that defendant had not received timely notice of the accident (see 11 NYCRR 65-1.1 [d]).
Contrary to plaintiff’s argument on appeal, the proof submitted by defendant established that it had not received timely notice of the accident, which proof was not rebutted by plaintiff.
In view of the foregoing, plaintiff’s remaining arguments are academic.
Accordingly, the order is affirmed.
PESCE, P.J., ALIOTTA and SOLOMON, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Paul Kenny
Chief Clerk
Decision Date: September 15, 2017
Reported in New York Official Reports at Compas Med., P.C. v American Tr. Ins. Co. (2017 NY Slip Op 51190(U))
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 2d, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
against
American Transit Ins. Co., Respondent.
The Rybak Firm, PLLC (Damin J. Toell, Esq.), for appellant. Law Office of Jason Tenenbaum, P.C. (Jason Tenenbaum, Esq.), for respondent.
Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (William A. Viscovich, J.), entered July 1, 2014. The order, insofar as appealed from, denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and granted the branches of defendant’s cross motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the first through fourth, sixth and seventh causes of action.
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, plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Civil Court as denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, and granted the branches of defendant’s cross motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the first through fourth, sixth and seventh causes of action on the ground, among others, that defendant had not received timely notice of the accident.
Contrary to plaintiff’s argument on appeal, the proof submitted by defendant was sufficient to raise an issue of fact as to whether defendant had ever received the claim underlying the fifth cause of action; thus, the Civil Court correctly denied the branch of plaintiff’s motion seeking summary judgment on this cause of action.
For the reasons stated in Compas Med, P.C. as Assignee of Grandoit, Andre v American Tr. Ins. Co. (___ Misc 3d ___, 2017 NY Slip Op _____ [appeal No. 2014-1826 Q C], decided herewith), the Civil Court correctly granted the branches of defendant’s cross motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the first through fourth, sixth and seventh causes of action.
In view of the foregoing, plaintiff’s remaining arguments are academic.
Accordingly, the order, insofar as appealed from, is affirmed.
PESCE, P.J., ALIOTTA and SOLOMON, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Paul Kenny
Chief Clerk
Decision Date: September 15, 2017
Reported in New York Official Reports at Charles Deng Acupuncture, P.C. v New S. Ins. Co. (2017 NY Slip Op 51189(U))
| Charles Deng Acupuncture, P.C. v New S. Ins. Co. |
| 2017 NY Slip Op 51189(U) [57 Misc 3d 130(A)] |
| Decided on September 15, 2017 |
| 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, 2017
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 2d, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : MICHAEL L. PESCE, P.J., THOMAS P. ALIOTTA, MARTIN SOLOMON, JJ
2014-1506 Q C
against
New South Insurance Company, Respondent.
The Rybak Firm, PLLC (Damin J. Toell, Esq.), for appellant. Freiberg, Peck & Kang, LLP (Yilo J. Kang, Esq.), for respondent.
Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Larry Love, J.), entered May 29, 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.
Plaintiff’s arguments as to defendant’s cross motion either lack merit (see St. Vincent’s Hosp. of Richmond v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 50 AD3d 1123 [2008]), or are not properly before this court, as they are being raised for the first time on appeal (see Joe v Upper Room Ministries, Inc., 88 AD3d 963 [2011]; Gulf Ins. Co. v Kanen, 13 AD3d 579 [2004]; Mind & Body Acupuncture, P.C. v Elrac, Inc., 48 Misc 3d 139[A], 2015 NY Slip Op 51219[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2015]).
Accordingly, the order is affirmed.
PESCE, P.J., ALIOTTA and SOLOMON, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Paul Kenny
Chief Clerk
Decision Date: September 15, 2017
Reported in New York Official Reports at Healthway Med. Care, P.C. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. (2017 NY Slip Op 51187(U))
| Healthway Med. Care, P.C. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. |
| 2017 NY Slip Op 51187(U) [57 Misc 3d 130(A)] |
| Decided on September 15, 2017 |
| 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, 2017
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 2d, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : MICHAEL L. PESCE, P.J., THOMAS P. ALIOTTA, MARTIN SOLOMON, JJ
2014-1125 K C
against
New York Central Mutual Fire Insurance Company, Respondent.
The Rybak Firm, PLLC (Damin J. Toell, Esq.), for appellant. Gullo & Associates, LLP (Cristina Carollo, Esq.), for respondent.
Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Carolyn E. Wade, J.), entered April 1, 2014. The order granted defendant’s 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 granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that plaintiff’s assignor had failed to appear for duly scheduled independent medical examinations.
For the reasons stated in Sama Physical Therapy, P.C., as Assignee of Sherod, Hill v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. (___ Misc 3d ___, 2017 NY Slip Op _____ [appeal No. 2014-1102 K C], decided herewith), the order is affirmed.
PESCE, P.J., ALIOTTA and SOLOMON, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Paul Kenny
Chief Clerk
Decision Date: September 15, 2017