|Rummel G. Mendoza, D.C., P.C. v Chubb Indem. Ins. Co.|
|2015 NY Slip Op 50900(U) [47 Misc 3d 156(A)]|
|Decided on June 17, 2015|
|Appellate Term, First 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|This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.|
Defendant, as limited by the briefs, appeals from so much of an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County (James E. d'Auguste, J.), entered March 4, 2014, as denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the no-fault claims of plaintiff L.N.L. Physical Therapy Rehabilitation, for services rendered September 2, 2010 through November 23, 2010 and January 3, 2011 through March 14, 2011, in the amount of $2,220.
Order (James E. d'Auguste, J.), entered March 4, 2014, insofar as appealed from, reversed, with $10 costs, motion granted and the no-fault claims of plaintiff L.N.L. Physical Therapy Rehabilitation in the amount of $2,220, dismissed.
The defendant-insurer made a prima facie showing of entitlement to summary judgment dismissing the first-party no-fault claims of plaintiff L.N.L. Physical Therapy Rehabilitation ("plaintiff") in the aggregate sum of $2,220, by establishing that it timely denied the claims based on the independent medical examination (IME) report and follow-up report of its examining orthopedic doctor, which set forth a factual basis and medical rationale for her stated conclusion that the assignor's injuries were resolved and that there was no need for further physical therapy treatment. In opposition, plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue. The affidavit of plaintiff's treating physical therapist failed to meaningfully address the contrary findings made by defendant's examining doctor, including the normal results of the range of motion testing of the assignor's cervical and lumbar spine (see CPT Med. Servs., P.C. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 18 Misc 3d 87 [1st Dept 2007]). Defendant's remaining arguments, raised for the first time in its reply brief, are not entitled to consideration (Mehmet v Add2Net, Inc., 66 AD3d 437 ).
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.