September 22, 2017

Citywide Acupuncture Servs., P.L.L.C. v Clarendon Natl. Ins. Co. (2017 NY Slip Op 51233(U))

Headnote

The Court considered the facts surrounding a provider's attempt to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, specifically focusing on the timeliness of the submission of the claim. The main issue decided was whether the plaintiff had timely submitted the claim, as the defendant argued that the complaint should be dismissed based on the untimeliness of the submission. The holding of the case was that the Civil Court properly found that there was a triable issue of fact as to whether the plaintiff had timely submitted the claim at issue, and therefore the branch of defendant's cross motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the complaint was denied. The order was affirmed by the Appellate Term, Second Department.

Reported in New York Official Reports at Citywide Acupuncture Servs., P.L.L.C. v Clarendon Natl. Ins. Co. (2017 NY Slip Op 51233(U))

Citywide Acupuncture Servs., P.L.L.C. v Clarendon Natl. Ins. Co. (2017 NY Slip Op 51233(U)) [*1]

Citywide Acupuncture Servs., P.L.L.C. v Clarendon Natl. Ins. Co.

2017 NY Slip Op 51233(U) [57 Misc 3d 132(A)]

Decided on September 22, 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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 22, 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
2014-975 K C

Citywide Acupuncture Services, P.L.L.C., as Assignee of Priscilla De Jesus, Respondent,
against
Clarendon National Insurance Company, Appellant.

Law Offices of Moira Doherty, P.C. (Janice P. Rosen, Esq.), for appellant. Christopher S. Cardillo, P.C., for respondent (no brief filed).

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Devin P. Cohen, J.), entered September 15, 2013. The order, insofar as appealed from and as limited by the brief, denied the branch of defendant’s cross motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the complaint based on plaintiff’s untimely submission of the claim.

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, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order as denied the branch of defendant’s cross motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the complaint based on plaintiff’s untimely submission of the claim at issue.

Contrary to defendant’s argument on appeal, the Civil Court properly found that, on this record, there is a triable issue of fact as to whether plaintiff had timely submitted the claim at issue (see St. Vincent’s Hosp. of Richmond v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 50 AD3d 1123 [2008]).

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

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

ENTER:
Paul Kenny
Chief Clerk
Decision Date: September 22, 2017