July 21, 2017

St. Anna Wellcare, P.C. v GEICO Ins. Co. (2017 NY Slip Op 50948(U))

Headnote

The court considered the proof submitted by the defendant in support of its cross motion for summary judgment, which did not establish as a matter of law its defense that the plaintiff's assignor's injuries did not arise from a covered incident. The main issue decided was whether defendant's cross motion for summary judgment should have been denied. The holding of the case was that the order, insofar as appealed from, is reversed and defendant's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is denied.

Reported in New York Official Reports at St. Anna Wellcare, P.C. v GEICO Ins. Co. (2017 NY Slip Op 50948(U))

St. Anna Wellcare, P.C. v GEICO Ins. Co. (2017 NY Slip Op 50948(U)) [*1]

St. Anna Wellcare, P.C. v GEICO Ins. Co.

2017 NY Slip Op 50948(U) [56 Misc 3d 133(A)]

Decided on July 21, 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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 July 21, 2017

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

PRESENT: : MICHAEL L. PESCE, P.J., THOMAS P. ALIOTTA, MARTIN M. SOLOMON, JJ
2014-1256 K C

St. Anna Wellcare, P.C., as Assignee of Maria Ramirez, Appellant,
against
GEICO Ins. Co., Respondent.

Law Offices of Emilia I. Rutigliano, P.C. (Marina Josovich, Esq.), for appellant. The Law Office of Printz & Goldstein (Megan C. Dimiceli-Glaser, Esq.), for respondent (no brief filed).

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Carol Ruth Feinman, J.), entered May 1, 2014. The order, insofar as appealed from as limited by the brief, granted defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

ORDERED that the order, insofar as appealed from, is reversed, with $30 costs, and defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is denied.

In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, plaintiff appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Civil Court as granted defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

The proof submitted by defendant in support of its cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint did not establish as a matter of law its proffered defense that plaintiff’s assignor’s injuries did not arise from a covered incident (see Central Gen. Hosp. v Chubb Group of Ins. Cos., 90 NY2d 195 [1997]). Consequently, defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment should have been denied (see Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557 [1980]; see also A.B. Med. Servs., PLLC v Clarendon Natl. Ins. Co., 25 Misc 3d 139[A], 2009 NY Slip Op 52383[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2009]).

Accordingly, the order, insofar as appealed from, is reversed and defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is denied.

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

ENTER:
Paul Kenny
Chief Clerk
Decision Date: July 21, 2017