|Renelique v National Liab. & Fire Ins. Co.|
|2016 NY Slip Op 51613(U) [53 Misc 3d 147(A)]|
|Decided on November 1, 2016|
|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|This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.|
Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Ulysses Bernard Leverett, J.), entered December 10, 2013. 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 modified by providing that defendant's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is denied; as so modified, the order is affirmed, without costs.
In this 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 on the ground that it had timely and properly denied the claim at issue based upon the assignor's failure to appear for duly scheduled independent medical examinations (IMEs). The Civil Court denied plaintiff's motion and granted defendant's cross motion.
Plaintiff correctly argues on appeal that the papers submitted in support of defendant's cross motion failed to establish that the letters scheduling the IMEs of plaintiff's assignor had been mailed (see St. Vincent's Hosp. of Richmond v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 50 AD3d 1123 ). Consequently, defendant failed to demonstrate that the IMEs had been properly scheduled and, thus, that it is entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
However, contrary to plaintiff's contention, plaintiff failed to demonstrate its prima facie entitlement to summary judgment, as the papers submitted in support of its motion failed to establish either that the claim at issue had not been timely denied (see Viviane Etienne Med. Care, P.C. v Country-Wide Ins. Co., 25 NY3d 498 ), or that defendant had issued a timely denial of claim that was conclusory, vague or without merit as a matter of law (see Westchester Med. Ctr. v Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 78 AD3d 1168 ; Ave T MPC Corp. v Auto One Ins. Co., 32 Misc 3d 128[A], 2011 NY Slip Op 51292[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2011]).
Accordingly, the order is modified by providing that defendant's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is denied.
Pesce, P.J., Aliotta and Solomon, JJ., concur.