It really isn't a suicide decision. I just needed a title so I could test out the post by email thing. As it turns out, it works terribly.
Westchester Med. Ctr. v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 2010 NY Slip Op 32295(U) (Sup Ct, Nassau County 2010)
Today there was a No-Fault Appellate Term decision which is only interesting because of the dissent.
Ortho-Med Surgical Supply, Inc. v MVAIC, 2010 NY Slip Op 51526(U) (App. Term, 2nd, 11th & 13th Jud. Dists. 2010)
We'll skip straight to the dissent.
Defendant presented an affidavit from a claims representative attesting to a procedure wherein a denial is placed in an addressed envelope and then dropped in the claims department's "outgoing mail basket." According to the claims representative, the contents of the mail basket are collected daily by a mailroom employee, who then affixes postage to the envelopes and "puts it in the mailbox" for delivery by the U.S. postal service. In my opinion, such an affidavit is insufficient to demonstrate mailing, for it merely concludes that the mail is sent. Defendant's affiant did not demonstrate firsthand knowledge of the procedures of the mailroom to establish that the denial had been mailed to plaintiff (see Hospital for Joint Diseases v Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 284 AD2d 374 [2001]; Clark v Columbian Mut. Life Ins. Co., 221 AD2d 227 [1995]). Consequently, defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint should have been denied.
Finally, Barshay over at NFP posted an interesting decision on an OSC to consolidate and stay, among other things. [Update 9/5] The decision made its way to the slip op site: Urban Radiology, P.C. v GEICO Ins. Co., 2010 NY Slip Op 51554(U) (Civ Ct City NY, Kings County). And on 9/3 there was an article in the NYLJ about doing away with the 30 day rule. It's wrongheaded, but I'll leave the discussion of that to those that cover it.
bruteforcelawyer.com 