Opinion
No. 2021-6 Q C
06-10-2022
Prestige Medical, P.C., as Assignee of Gibson, Thomas, Respondent, v. Metropolitan Property and Casualty Ins. Co., Appellant.
Bruno, Gerbino, Soriano & Aitken, LLP (Susan B. Eisner of counsel), for appellant. Law Offices of Gabriel & Moroff, P.C. (Michael J. Poropat and Koenig Pierre of counsel), for respondent.
Unpublished Opinion
Bruno, Gerbino, Soriano & Aitken, LLP (Susan B. Eisner of counsel), for appellant.
Law Offices of Gabriel & Moroff, P.C. (Michael J. Poropat and Koenig Pierre of counsel), for respondent.
PRESENT:: THOMAS P. ALIOTTA, P.J., MICHELLE WESTON, WAVNY TOUSSAINT, JJ
Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Karina E. Alomar, J.), entered July 30, 2020. The order denied defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
ORDERED that the order 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 appeals from an order of the Civil Court denying defendant's motion which had sought summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that plaintiff had failed to appear for duly scheduled examinations under oath (EUOs).
Defendant established that the EUO scheduling letters had been properly mailed (see St. Vincent's Hosp. of Richmond v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 50 A.D.3d 1123 [2008]). Contrary to the finding of the Civil Court, the EUO scheduling letters, which identified the date of the accident and the assignor, were not required to specify bills to which they pertained (see Longevity Med. Supply, Inc. v Nationwide Ins., 69 Misc.3d 128 [A], 2020 NY Slip Op 51133[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2020]; First Class Med., P.C. v Ameriprise Ins. Co.,63 Misc.3d 135[A], 2019 NY Slip Op 50477[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2019]; ARCO Med. NY, P.C. v Lancer Ins. Co., 34 Misc.3d 134 [A], 2011 NY Slip Op 52382[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2011]). Defendant further established that plaintiff had failed to appear for the duly scheduled EUOs (see Stephen Fogel Psychological, P.C. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 35 A.D.3d 720 [2006]) and that defendant had timely mailed (see St. Vincent's Hosp. of Richmond, 50 A.D.3d 1123) its denial of claim forms denying the claims on that ground. In opposition, plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact.
Accordingly, the order is reversed and defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted.
ALIOTTA, P.J., WESTON and TOUSSAINT, JJ., concur.