In Infinity Health Products, Ltd. v. Eveready Ins. Co., 67 AD3d 862, 2009 NY Slip Op 08585 2d Dept ), the Court recently held that it "it would be inequitable to award summary judgment to the plaintiff, which ignored two verification requests, merely because the defendant, slightly prematurely, sent its second verification request a mere 3 days before the expiration of a full 30 days after the first verification request had been sent" (2009 NY Slip Op 08585 at 2) The Court reasoned that "it would be incongruous to conclude that the insurance regulation regarding follow-up verification, or any other statute or rule, warrants a result which would, in effect, penalize an insurer who diligently attempts to obtain the information necessary to make a determination of a claim, and concomitantly, rewards a plaintiff who makes no attempt to even comply with the insurer's requests.... and that such a result is not contemplated by the no-fault law' or its regulations, which should be interpreted to promote the expeditious handling of verification requests and prompt claim resolution" (Id.). The Court held that "inasmuch as the plaintiff did not respond to either of the verification requests, the 30-day period within which the defendant was required to pay or deny the claim did not commence to run . . . and that . . . plaintiff's action was therefore premature" (Id.). The Court further held that "plaintiff was not entitled to summary judgment on the complaint, and the defendant's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint should have been granted . . . without prejudice to commencement of a new action" (Id.).