Great Health Care Chiropractic, P.C. v Hanover Ins. Co. (2014 NY Slip Op 50359(U))

Great Health Care Chiropractic, P.C. v Hanover Ins. Co.

2014 NY Slip Op 50359(U) [42 Misc 3d 147(A)]

Decided on February 28, 2014

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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 2d, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS

Great Health Care Chiropractic, P.C. as Assignee of DAYRA KATSAN, Appellant,

against

The Hanover Insurance Company, Respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Richard G. Latin, J.), entered September 14, 2012. The order denied plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and granted defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

ORDERED that the order is reversed, with $30 costs, plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is granted, defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is denied, and the matter is remitted to the Civil Court for a calculation of statutory interest and an assessment of attorney's fees.

In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground of fraudulent procurement of the insurance policy by virtue of the assignor's misrepresenting the state in which the vehicle at issue was garaged. Plaintiff separately moved for summary judgment. The Civil Court granted defendant's motion and denied plaintiff's motion.

The record indicates that plaintiff established its prima facie entitlement to summary judgment (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, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2011]) and that defendant failed to demonstrate that it had timely denied plaintiff's claim. With respect to defendant's motion for summary judgment, although defendant contends that, in connection with the issuance of the insurance policy at issue, plaintiff's assignor had misrepresented the state where the insured vehicle was garaged, defendant is precluded from asserting that defense in support of its motion and in opposition to plaintiff's motion as it failed to establish that it had timely denied plaintiff's claim on that ground (see Westchester Med. Ctr. v GMAC Ins. Co. Online, Inc., 80 AD3d 603 [2011] cf. Central Radiology Servs., P.C. v Commerce Ins. Co., 31 Misc 3d 146[A], 2011 NY Slip Op 50948[U] [App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2011]).

Accordingly, the order is reversed, plaintiff's motion is granted, defendant's motion is denied, and the matter is remitted to the Civil Court for a calculation of statutory interest and an assessment of attorney's fees pursuant to Insurance Law § 5106 and the regulations promulgated thereunder. [*2]