September 27, 2016

Laga v Foremost Signature Ins. Co. (2016 NY Slip Op 51418(U))

Headnote

The court considered an appeal from an order granting the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint in an action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits. The main issue decided was whether the defendant failed to establish, as a matter of law, its defense that the fees charged exceeded the amounts set forth in the workers' compensation fee schedule. The holding of the court was that the order was reversed, with the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint being denied, as plaintiff properly argued on appeal that the defendant failed to establish its defense. Therefore, the court ruled in favor of the plaintiff's appeal.

Reported in New York Official Reports at Laga v Foremost Signature Ins. Co. (2016 NY Slip Op 51418(U))

Laga v Foremost Signature Ins. Co. (2016 NY Slip Op 51418(U)) [*1]

Laga v Foremost Signature Ins. Co.

2016 NY Slip Op 51418(U) [53 Misc 3d 134(A)]

Decided on September 27, 2016

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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 September 27, 2016

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

PRESENT: : PESCE, P.J., ALIOTTA and SOLOMON, JJ.
2014-773 Q C

Adelaida M. Laga, PT, as Assignee of JENNY JIMENEZ, Appellant,
against
Foremost Signature Insurance Company, Respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Ulysses Bernard Leverett, J.), entered March 17, 2014. The order granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

ORDERED that the order is reversed, with $30 costs, and defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is denied.

In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Civil Court which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Plaintiff properly argues on appeal that defendant failed to establish, as a matter of law, its defense that the fees charged exceeded the amounts set forth in the workers’ compensation fee schedule (see Rogy Med., P.C. v Mercury Cas. Co., 23 Misc 3d 132[A], 2009 NY Slip Op 50732[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2009]).

Accordingly, the order is reversed and defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is denied.

Pesce, P.J., Aliotta and Solomon, JJ., concur.

Decision Date: September 27, 2016