Blog

Nexus between receipt and mailingNovember 30, 2018

Maiga Prods. Corp. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 2018 NY Slip Op 51681(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2018)

” Plaintiff challenges the Civil Court’s implicit CPLR 3212 (g) finding that the first EUO scheduling letter had been timely mailed, arguing that the individual who executed the affidavit of mailing of the EUO scheduling letters did not demonstrate knowledge of the practice and procedures for receipt of the claim forms, which were mailed to defendant’s office in Atlanta, Georgia. Plaintiff also challenges the Civil Court’s implicit CPLR 3212 (g) finding that defendant established plaintiff’s failure to appear for the EUOs. However, a review of the record establishes that the Civil Court correctly determined that defendant had established plaintiff’s failure to appear for the EUOs. Moreover, defendant’s practices and procedures regarding the receipt of its mail are irrelevant

The last sentence is well quite interesting.

One Response

  1. Rookie says:

    Appellate term seems to condone BS affidavits how a person located in one state can testify about stuff that happened in another state It’s interesting that app div has a much higher standard than the app term.

Leave a Reply