From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Richmond Radiology, P.C. v. American Tr. Ins. Co.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Dept., 2nd, 11th, & 13th Judicial Districts
Oct 27, 2011
2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 52012 (N.Y. App. Term 2011)

Opinion

2010-1035 Q C

10-27-2011

Richmond Radiology, P.C. as Assignee of LEA PEREZ, Appellant, v. American Transit Insurance Company, Respondent.


PRESENT: : , P.J., WESTON and RIOS, JJ

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Judi Orlow, J.), entered March 11, 2010, deemed from a judgment of the same court entered April 2, 2010 (see CPLR 5512 [a]; Neuman v Otto, 114 AD2d 791 [1985]). The judgment, entered pursuant to the March 11, 2010 order denying plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and granting defendant's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, awarded defendant the sum of $60.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, plaintiff appeals from an order denying its motion for summary judgment and granting defendant's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. We deem plaintiff's appeal to be from the judgment entered pursuant to the order (see CPLR 5512 [a]; Neuman v Otto, 114 AD2d 791 [1985]).

Plaintiff's sole argument on appeal is that defendant did not establish that plaintiff's assignor had failed to appear for examinations under oath (EUOs). However, a review of the record reveals that the affidavit of defendant's investigator, who was responsible for conducting the EUOs, established that plaintiff's assignor had failed to appear for the scheduled EUOs (see Stephen Fogel Psychological, P.C. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 35 AD3d 720 [2006]; Crotona Hgts. Med., P.C. v Farm Family Cas. Ins. Co., 27 Misc 3d 134[A], 2010 NY Slip Op 50716[U] [App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2010]; W & Z Acupuncture, P.C. v Amex Assur. Co., 24 Misc 3d 142[A], 2009 NY Slip Op 51732[U] [App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2009]). Since an appearance at an EUO is a condition precedent to the insurer's liability on the policy (see Insurance Department Regulations [11 NYCRR] § 65—1.1; Stephen Fogel Psychological, P.C., 35 AD3d at 722), the judgment is affirmed.

Pesce, P.J., Weston and Rios, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Richmond Radiology, P.C. v. American Tr. Ins. Co.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Dept., 2nd, 11th, & 13th Judicial Districts
Oct 27, 2011
2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 52012 (N.Y. App. Term 2011)
Case details for

Richmond Radiology, P.C. v. American Tr. Ins. Co.

Case Details

Full title:Richmond Radiology, P.C. as Assignee of LEA PEREZ, Appellant, v. American…

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Dept., 2nd, 11th, & 13th Judicial Districts

Date published: Oct 27, 2011

Citations

2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 52012 (N.Y. App. Term 2011)