Psychology After Accident, P.C. v. N.Y. Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 2019-1549 K C

CourtNew York Supreme Court — Appellate Term
Citation155 N.Y.S.3d 28 (Table),73 Misc.3d 136 (A)
Docket Number2019-1549 K C
Parties PSYCHOLOGY AFTER ACCIDENT, P.C., as Assignee of Jean Roosevelt and Villa Jackson, Respondent, v. NEW YORK CENTRAL MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant.
Decision Date12 November 2021

73 Misc.3d 136 (A)
155 N.Y.S.3d 28 (Table)

PSYCHOLOGY AFTER ACCIDENT, P.C., as Assignee of Jean Roosevelt and Villa Jackson, Respondent,
v.
NEW YORK CENTRAL MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant.

2019-1549 K C

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, New York, Second Dept., 2, 11, 13 Jud. Dist.

Decided on November 12, 2021


Nightingale Law, P.C. (Michael S. Nightingale of counsel), for appellant.

Zara Javakov, P.C. (Zara Javakov of counsel), for respondent.

PRESENT: DAVID ELLIOT, J.P., MICHELLE WESTON, DONNA-MARIE E. GOLIA, JJ.

ORDERED that the order, insofar as appealed from, is reversed, with $30 costs, and defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted.

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 plaintiff's assignors had failed to appear for duly scheduled independent medical examinations (IMEs), and plaintiff cross-moved for summary judgment. By order dated July 11, 2019, the Civil Court denied the motion and cross motion, but found, in effect pursuant to CPLR 3212 (g), that the only issue remaining for trial was plaintiff's assignors’ failure to appear for the IMEs. As limited by its brief, defendant appeals from so much of the order as denied its motion.

The proof submitted by defendant was sufficient to demonstrate that plaintiff's assignors had failed to appear for the IMEs (see Stephen Fogel Psychological, P.C. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co. , 35 AD3d 720 [2006] ; cf. Satya Drug Corp. v Global Liberty Ins. Co. of NY , 65 Misc 3d 127[A], 2019 NY Slip Op 51505[U] [App Term, 1st Dept 2019] ), which showing plaintiff failed to rebut. In view of the foregoing, and as plaintiff has not challenged the Civil Court's finding, in effect, that defendant is otherwise entitled to judgment, the order, insofar as appealed from, is reversed and defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted.

ELLIOT, J.P., WESTON and GOLIA, JJ., concur.

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT