September 27, 2016

Quality Health Prods., Inc v Geico Gen. Ins. Co. (2016 NY Slip Op 51430(U))

Headnote

The relevant facts considered by the court were that Quality Health Products, Inc. brought a claim to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits and moved for summary judgment, while Geico General Insurance Co. cross-moved for summary judgment based on lack of medical necessity. The main issue decided was whether there was a triable issue of fact regarding the medical necessity of the supplies at issue. The holding of the court was that there was indeed a triable issue of fact regarding the medical necessity, and therefore the order denying the cross motion for summary judgment by Geico General Insurance Co. was affirmed.

Reported in New York Official Reports at Quality Health Prods., Inc v Geico Gen. Ins. Co. (2016 NY Slip Op 51430(U))

Quality Health Prods., Inc v Geico Gen. Ins. Co. (2016 NY Slip Op 51430(U)) [*1]

Quality Health Prods., Inc v Geico Gen. Ins. Co.

2016 NY Slip Op 51430(U) [53 Misc 3d 135(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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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.
2014-966 K C

Quality Health Products, Inc., as Assignee of SONJA FIEDTKOU-PERRY, Respondent,
against
Geico General Ins. Co., Appellant.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Dawn Jimenez Salta, J.), entered October 7, 2011. The order, insofar as appealed from and as limited by the brief, denied defendant’s cross motion for 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, plaintiff moved for summary judgment, and defendant cross-moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint based upon a lack of medical necessity. The Civil Court denied plaintiff’s motion and defendant’s cross motion but, in effect, limited the issues for trial pursuant to CPLR 3212 (g), finding that the only remaining issue for trial was medical necessity. As limited by its brief, defendant appeals from so much of the order as denied its cross motion.

Upon a review of the record, we find that there is a triable issue of fact regarding the medical necessity of the supplies at issue (see Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557 [1980]).

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

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

Decision Date: September 27, 2016