| GL Acupuncture, P.C. v Maya Assur. Co. |
| 2016 NY Slip Op 50310(U) [50 Misc 3d 146(A)] |
| Decided on March 11, 2016 |
| Appellate Term, Second Department |
| Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law ยง 431. |
| As corrected in part through March 28, 2016; it will not be published in the printed Official Reports. |
Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Reginald A. Boddie, J.), entered March 22, 2013. The order granted 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 denied.
In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Civil Court which granted defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
Plaintiff correctly argues on appeal that the affidavit submitted by defendant in suuport of its motion did not sufficiently set forth a standard office practice or procedure that would ensure that the letters scheduling independent medical examinations (IMEs) had been properly addressed and mailed (see St. Vincent's Hosp. of Richmond v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 50 AD3d 1123 [2008]). As a result, defendant failed to demonstrate that the IMEs had been properly scheduled and, thus, that plaintiff's assignor had failed to appear at duly scheduled IMEs (see Stephen Fogel Psychological, P.C. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 35 AD3d 720, 722 [2006]; see also Delta Diagnostic Radiology, P.C. v Maya Assur. Co., 47 Misc 3d 151[A], 2015 NY Slip Op 50786[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2015]). Consequently, defendant is not entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
Accordingly, the order is reversed and defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is denied.
Pesce, P.J., Aliotta and Elliot, JJ., concur.