Great Health Care Chiropractic, P.C. v Hereford Ins. Co., 2016 NY Slip Op 50858(U) http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2016/2016_50858.htm
After Defendant established established that it had timely mailed its verification request and follow-up verification request (see St. Vincent’s Hosp. of Richmond v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 50 AD3d 1123 [2008]). Defendant the demonstrated prima facie that it had not received the requested verification and, that plaintiff’s action was therefore premature (see Central Suffolk Hosp. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 24 AD3d 492 [2005]).
The Court stated:
However, in opposition to the motion, plaintiff submitted an affidavit from plaintiff’s owner, which affidavit was sufficient to give rise to a presumption that the requested verification had been mailed to, and received by, defendant (see Residential Holding Corp. v Scottsdale Ins. Co., 286 AD2d 679 [2001]). In light of the foregoing, there is a triable issue of fact as to whether this action is premature (see Healing Health Prods., Inc. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 44 Misc 3d 59 [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2014]).
Its curious what the Plaintiff affidavit said. Was there proof of mailing from the Defendant?