Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
ACTION POTENTIAL CHIROPRACTIC, PLLC, as Assignee of Brumaire, Shimaine, Respondent, v. TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant.
ORDERED that the judgment is reversed, with $30 costs, so much of the order entered August 9, 2016 as granted plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is vacated, plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is denied, and the matter is remitted to the Civil Court for a determination of the branch of defendant's cross motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that plaintiff's assignor had failed to satisfy a condition precedent to coverage.
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 plaintiff had failed to appear for duly scheduled examinations under oath (EUOs) on April 17, 2013 and May 6, 2013. Plaintiff opposed the cross motion. Defendant argued in a reply affirmation that the complaint should be dismissed based on plaintiff's nonappearance at the EUOs, and on the ground of collateral estoppel, based upon an order entered September 4, 2014 by the Civil Court, Queens County, in a separate action, which had granted a motion by defendant for summary judgment dismissing the complaint in that action, finding that defendant had established that plaintiff had failed to appear for EUOs on April 17, 2013 and May 6, 2013. By order entered August 9, 2016, the Civil Court granted plaintiff's motion and denied the branch of defendant's cross motion which had sought summary judgment on the ground of collateral estoppel, stating that the September 4, 2014 order of the Civil Court, Queens County, “alone was not sufficient to establish the issue preclusion in this case.”
Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment should have been denied as the proof submitted by plaintiff failed to establish that the claim had not been timely denied (see Viviane Etienne Med. Care, P.C. v. Country-Wide Ins. Co., 25 NY3d 498 [2015] ), or that defendant had issued a timely denial of claim form that was conclusory, vague or without merit as a matter of law (see Westchester Med. Ctr. v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 78 AD3d 1168 [2010]; 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] ). With respect to defendant's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, the Civil Court properly determined that defendant had failed to establish that the September 4, 2014 order has a preclusive effect on the case at bar (see M. Kaminsky & M. Friedberger v. Wilson, 150 AD3d 1094 [2017] ). However, the Civil Court did not address the branch of defendant's cross motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that plaintiff's assignor had failed to satisfy a condition precedent to coverage based on the proof defendant submitted therein without regard to the September 4, 2014 order. As a result, the matter is remitted to the Civil Court for a determination of this branch of defendant's cross motion.
Accordingly, the judgment is reversed, so much of the order entered August 9, 016 as granted plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is vacated, plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is denied, and the matter is remitted to the Civil Court for a determination of the branch of defendant's cross motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that plaintiff's assignor had failed to satisfy a condition precedent to coverage.
ELLIOT, J.P., WESTON and SIEGAL, JJ., concur.
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: 2016-2887 K C
Decided: December 07, 2018
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Term, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)