STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY v. Full Psychology, P.C., et al., Defendants–Appellants. (2025)

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Leslie A. Stroth, J.), entered on or about October 12, 2023, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted plaintiff's motion for summary judgment as against defendants Full Psychology, P.C., Metro Pain Specialists Professional Corporation, Big Apple Medical Group Corp., ERF Physical Therapy, P.C., and Michele Glispy, LAC (collectively, medical providers), unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the motion denied, and the matter remanded for further proceedings consistent with this decision.

The court should have denied plaintiff's motion for summary judgment as against defendant medical providers.  Even assuming plaintiff established that the insureds misrepresented their residence and the primary garaging location of the insured vehicle, plaintiff failed to establish, as a matter of law, that the misrepresentations as to the insureds' correct address and garaging location were material misrepresentations (see Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Valera, 208 A.D.3d 1104, 176 N.Y.S.3d 10 [1st Dept. 2022];  see also Feldman v. Friedman, 241 A.D.2d 433, 434, 661 N.Y.S.2d 9 [1st Dept. 1997]).  The affidavit of plaintiff's underwriter is “conclusory and not supported by relevant documentary evidence such as underwriting manuals, rules, or bulletins” (Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Valera, 208 A.D.3d at 1104, 176 N.Y.S.3d 10).  Accordingly, we remand the matter for further discovery.