Ranbow Supply of N.Y., Inc. v Progressive Northeastern Ins. Co., 2013 NY Slip Op 51729(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2013)
“While plaintiff argues that defendant did not mail its IME scheduling letters to the correct address, defendant sufficiently demonstrated that it addressed the letters to plaintiff’s assignor, defendant’s insured, at the address provided to it by its insured. In addition, defendant demonstrated that copies of the IME scheduling letters had been addressed to, and received by, plaintiff’s assignor’s attorney (see Great Wall Acupuncture, P.C. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 22 Misc 3d 136[A], 2009 NY Slip Op 50294[U] [App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2009]).”
This is another matter where it appears the NF-2 is the lodestar for determining the correct address to the mail the IME letters. The Great Wall case that is cited allows an IME leter to be sent to an attorney after the letter is sent to Assignor but prior to the IME, when notice is given a short time prior to the IME of representation of Assignor.
