September 8, 2017

525 EVM, Inc. v GEICO Gen. Ins. Co. (2017 NY Slip Op 51144(U))

Headnote

The case involved a dispute between 525 EVM, Inc. and GEICO General Insurance Company regarding the recovery of first-party no-fault benefits that had been assigned to 525 EVM, Inc. The Civil Court denied both parties' motions for summary judgment, finding that there were triable issues of fact. 525 EVM, Inc. appealed, arguing that the Civil Court should have found, pursuant to CPLR 3212 (g), that certain facts had been established for all purposes in the action. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's decision, citing a similar case that had been decided with it. The holding of the case was that the appellate court affirmed the lower court's decision to deny both parties' motions for summary judgement.

Reported in New York Official Reports at 525 EVM, Inc. v GEICO Gen. Ins. Co. (2017 NY Slip Op 51144(U))

525 EVM, Inc. v GEICO Gen. Ins. Co. (2017 NY Slip Op 51144(U)) [*1]

525 EVM, Inc. v GEICO Gen. Ins. Co.

2017 NY Slip Op 51144(U) [57 Misc 3d 127(A)]

Decided on September 8, 2017

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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 8, 2017

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

PRESENT: : MICHAEL L. PESCE, P.J., THOMAS P. ALIOTTA, MARTIN SOLOMON, JJ
2014-1705 K C

525 EVM, Inc., as Assignee of Davon Rodney, Appellant,
against
GEICO General Insurance Company, Respondent.

Fuld & Karp, P.C. (David Karp, Esq.), for appellant. The Law Office of Printz & Goldstein (Lawrence J. Chanice, Esq.), for respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Reginald A. Boddie, J.), entered June 2, 2014. The order, insofar as appealed from and as limited by the brief, upon denying plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, failed to find, pursuant to CPLR 3212 (g), that plaintiff had established certain facts for all purposes in the 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, plaintiff moved for summary judgment and defendant cross-moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The Civil Court denied both motions, finding that there were triable issues of fact.

Plaintiff’s sole argument on appeal is that the Civil Court, upon denying plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, should have found, pursuant to CPLR 3212 (g), that plaintiff had established certain facts for all purposes in the action. For the reasons stated in 525 EVM, Inc., as Assignee of Dzianis Haiduk v GEICO Gen. Ins. Co. (___ Misc 3d ___, 2017 NY Slip Op _____ [appeal No. 2014-1926 K C], decided herewith), the order, insofar as appealed from, is affirmed.

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

Paul Kenny
Chief Clerk
Decision Date: September 08, 2017