Opinion
No. 570582/12.
2012-11-30
GNK MEDICAL SUPPLY, INC., a/a/o Oswald Tucker, Plaintiff–Respondent, v. TRI–STATE CONSUMER INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant–Appellant.
Defendant appeals from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County (Manuel J. Mendez, J.), entered February 25, 2011, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
Present: LOWE, III, P.J., SHULMAN, HUNTER, JR., JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Order (Manuel J. Mendez, J.), entered February 25, 2011, reversed, with $10 costs, motion granted and complaint dismissed. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.
In this action to recover first-party no-fault benefits, the evidentiary proof submitted by defendant-insurer was sufficient to establish, prima facie, that its initial and follow-up verification letters were timely and properly mailed to the plaintiff medical provider's attorney ( see Nassau Ins. Co. v. Murray, 46 N.Y.2d 828, 829 [1978];LMK Psychological Servs., P.C. v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. ., 30 A.D.3d 727, 728 [2006];Badio v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 12 A.D.3d 229 [2004] ), as authorized by plaintiff's counsel's prior correspondence to defendant ( see St. Vincent's Hosp. of Richmond v. American Tr. Ins. Co., 299 A.D.2d 338, 339–340 [2002];New York Hosp. Med. Ctr. of Queens v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 293 A.D.2d 588, 590–591 [2002] ). It being undisputed that plaintiff failed to respond to these verification requests, defendant established entitlement to summary judgment dismissing the claim as premature ( see St. Vincent Med. Care, P.C. v. Country Wide Ins. Co., 80 A.D.3d 599, 600 [2011] ).
In opposition, plaintiff's attorney's conclusory denial of receipt of the verification letters was insufficient to raise a triable issue ( see Nassau Ins. Co. v. Murray, 46 N.Y.2d 828, 829–830 [1978];Pardo v. Central Coop. Ins. Co., 223 A.D.2d 832, 833 [1996] ). We also reject plaintiff's claim that 11 NYCRR 65–3.6(b) required defendant to issue a delay letter to both plaintiff and its attorney, since that requirement applies only in circumstances, not here present, where information is sought from a party other than the applicant ( see Doshi Diagnostic Imaging Servs. v. State Farm Ins. Co., 16 Misc.3d 42 [2007] ).
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.