June 1, 2018

Precious Acupuncture Care, P.C. v GEICO Gen. Ins. Co. (2018 NY Slip Op 50827(U))

Headnote

The court considered an appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County, in a case involving Precious Acupuncture Care, P.C., seeking to recover first-party no-fault benefits from GEICO General Insurance Company. GEICO appealed from an order denying its cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the fourth cause of action based on lack of medical necessity. The main issue decided was whether there was a triable issue of fact regarding the medical necessity of the services at issue. The court held that after reviewing the record, there was indeed a triable issue of fact regarding the medical necessity of the services, and therefore affirmed the order denying GEICO's cross motion for summary judgment.

Reported in New York Official Reports at Precious Acupuncture Care, P.C. v GEICO Gen. Ins. Co. (2018 NY Slip Op 50827(U))

Precious Acupuncture Care, P.C. v GEICO Gen. Ins. Co. (2018 NY Slip Op 50827(U)) [*1]

Precious Acupuncture Care, P.C. v GEICO Gen. Ins. Co.

2018 NY Slip Op 50827(U) [59 Misc 3d 149(A)]

Decided on June 1, 2018

Appellate Term, Second Department

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on June 1, 2018

SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 2d, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS

PRESENT: : MICHAEL L. PESCE, P.J., THOMAS P. ALIOTTA, DAVID ELLIOT, JJ
2015-2383 K C

Precious Acupuncture Care, P.C., as Assignee of Ana Tejada, Respondent,
against
GEICO General Insurance Company, Appellant.

Law Office of Goldstein & Flecker (Lawrence J. Chanice of counsel), for appellant. Law Offices of Emilia I. Rutigliano, P.C., for respondent (no brief filed).

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Katherine A. Levine, J.), entered July 16, 2015. The order, insofar as appealed from, denied the branch of defendant’s cross motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the fourth cause of action.

ORDERED that the order, insofar as appealed from, is affirmed, with $25 costs.

In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, defendant appeals from so much of an order of the Civil Court as denied the branch of defendant’s cross motion which had sought summary judgment dismissing the fourth cause of action based upon a lack of medical necessity.

Upon a review of the record, we agree with the Civil Court’s determination that there is a triable issue of fact regarding the medical necessity of the services at issue (see Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557 [1980]).

Accordingly, the order, insofar as appealed from, is affirmed.

PESCE, P.J., ALIOTTA and ELLIOT, JJ., concur.

ENTER:
Paul Kenny
Chief Clerk
Decision Date: June 01, 2018