April 7, 2014

Amega, Inc. v Allstate Ins. Co. (2014 NY Slip Op 50626(U))

Headnote

The relevant facts the court considered in this case were that the plaintiff, a medical provider, moved for summary judgment to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits from the defendant insurance company. The Civil Court denied the motion but limited the issues for trial to the timeliness and propriety of the defendant's denial of claim forms and to the defenses preserved in such denials. On appeal, the defendant argued that the Civil Court effectively granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and should not have made findings in the plaintiff's favor under CPLR 3212(g). The main issue decided was whether the Civil Court erred in limiting the issues for trial and making findings in the plaintiff's favor, and the holding was that the order, insofar as appealed from, was affirmed because the court did not grant the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and was permitted to limit the issues of fact for trial under CPLR 3212(g).

Reported in New York Official Reports at Amega, Inc. v Allstate Ins. Co. (2014 NY Slip Op 50626(U))

Amega, Inc. v Allstate Ins. Co. (2014 NY Slip Op 50626(U)) [*1]

Amega, Inc. v Allstate Ins. Co.

2014 NY Slip Op 50626(U) [43 Misc 3d 133(A)]

Decided on April 7, 2014

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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 April 7, 2014

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

PRESENT: : PESCE, P.J., ALIOTTA and SOLOMON, JJ
2011-955 K C.

Amega, Inc. as Assignee of JOSE LOZADA NEGRON, Respondent,
against
Allstate Insurance Company, Appellant.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Katherine A. Levine, J.), entered January 11, 2011. The order, insofar as appealed from, upon denying plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, limited the issues for trial to the timeliness and propriety of defendant’s denial of claim forms and to the defenses preserved in such denials (see CPLR 3212 [g]).

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, plaintiff moved for summary judgment. The Civil Court denied the motion, but limited the issues for trial to the timeliness and propriety of defendant’s denial of claim forms and to the defenses preserved in such denials. Defendant argues on appeal that the Civil Court, in effect, granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, and that it should not have made CPLR 3212 (g) findings in plaintiff’s favor.

Contrary to defendant’s position on appeal, the court did not grant plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. Rather, the court limited the issues of fact for trial, which it is permitted to do when a motion for summary judgment is denied or partially denied (see CPLR 3212 [g]).

Defendant fails to articulate a sufficient basis to strike the Civil Court’s CPLR 3212 (g) findings in plaintiff’s favor (see Viviane Etienne Med. Care, P.C. v Country-Wide Ins. Co., ___ AD3d ___, 2013 NY Slip Op 08430 [2d Dept 2013]).

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

Pesce, P.J., Aliotta and Solomon, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: April 07, 2014