September 21, 2016

Metro Psychological Servs., P.C. v Auto One Ins. Co. (2016 NY Slip Op 51376(U))

Headnote

The court considered a motion seeking summary judgment to dismiss a complaint brought by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits. The main issue decided was whether there was a triable issue of fact regarding the medical necessity of the services at issue. The holding of the court was that they agreed with the Civil Court's determination that there is a triable issue of fact regarding the medical necessity of the services at issue and therefore, the branch of the defendant's motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the complaint was denied. The court noted that there was another branch of the defendant's motion seeking to compel the plaintiff to appear for a deposition, which remained pending and undecided.

Reported in New York Official Reports at Metro Psychological Servs., P.C. v Auto One Ins. Co. (2016 NY Slip Op 51376(U))

Metro Psychological Servs., P.C. v Auto One Ins. Co. (2016 NY Slip Op 51376(U)) [*1]

Metro Psychological Servs., P.C. v Auto One Ins. Co.

2016 NY Slip Op 51376(U) [53 Misc 3d 131(A)]

Decided on September 21, 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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 21, 2016

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

PRESENT: : PESCE, P.J., ALIOTTA and SOLOMON, JJ.
2014-1015 K C

Metro Psychological Services, P.C., as Assignee of SEYMON FEYGIN, Respondent,
against
Auto One Insurance Company, Appellant.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Harriet L. Thompson, J.), entered February 11, 2014. The order, insofar as appealed from, denied the branch of defendant’s motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

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 motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

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]).

We note that the Civil Court failed to determine the branch of defendant’s motion seeking to compel plaintiff to appear for a deposition, and, thus, that branch of defendant’s motion remains pending and undecided (see Creese v Long Is. Light. Co., 98 AD3d 708, 711 [2012]; W.W. Med., P.C. v Allstate Ins. Co., 41 Misc 3d 130[A], 2013 NY Slip Op 51743[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2013]).

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

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

Decision Date: September 21, 2016