Longevity Med. Supply, Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.

Longevity Med. Supply, Inc. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (2022 NY Slip Op 51235(U)) [*1] Longevity Med. Supply, Inc. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. 2022 NY Slip Op 51235(U) [77 Misc 3d 131(A)] Decided on November 18, 2022 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports. Decided on November 18, 2022 SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 2d, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS PRESENT: : THOMAS P. ALIOTTA, P.J., MICHELLE WESTON, WAVNY TOUSSAINT, JJ 2021-166 K C Longevity Medical Supply, Inc., as Assignee of Cartright, Kronsprintz, Appellant, against State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co., Respondent. The Rybak Firm, PLLC (Damin J. Toell and Richard Rozhik of counsel), for appellant. Freiberg, Peck & Kang, LLP (Yilo J. Kang of counsel), for respondent. Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Carolyn Walker-Diallo, J.), entered December 18, 2020. The order granted defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and denied plaintiff's cross motion for summary judgment. ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with $25 costs. In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Civil Court granting defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and denying plaintiff's cross motion for summary judgment. Contrary to plaintiff's sole contention with respect to defendant's motion, the affidavit executed by defendant's claims specialist, along with the relevant supporting documents submitted in support of defendant's motion, sufficiently demonstrated that defendant had previously paid another provider for the same piece of medical equipment which is the basis for the claim at issue in this case. Consequently, defendant established its prima facie entitlement to summary judgment dismissing the complaint and plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact with respect thereto. Accordingly, the order is affirmed. ALIOTTA, P.J., WESTON and TOUSSAINT, JJ., concur. ENTER: Paul Kenny Chief Clerk Decision Date: November 18, 2022