July 10, 2008

Vinings Spinal Diagnostic v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co. (2008 NY Slip Op 51534(U))

https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/vinings-spinal-diagnostic-v-progressive-cas-ins-co-2008-ny-slip-op51534u/

Court: Appellate Term, Second Department
Decided: July 10, 2008
Citation: 2008 NY Slip Op 51534(U) · 20 Misc 3d 136(A)
Posture: Other motion
Outcome: Insurer prevailed
Issues: Discovery and procedure

Cite as

Vinings Spinal Diagnostic v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 20 Misc 3d 136(A), 2008 NY Slip Op 51534(U) (App Term, 2d Dept, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2008)

Posture, outcome, issues and treatment by other decisions are Beynenson Law’s classification. Treatment labels are assigned by a language model reading the citing decision; negative and appeal-history labels are checked by a second reader.

Summary

Editorial summary by Beynenson Law, not part of the court’s decision.

The provider's discovery appeal was dismissed because the challenged order decided a motion that had not been made on notice. The order required an assignor's authorization to obtain the insurer's no-fault file and placed reproduction costs on the provider. Under UDCA 1702 (a) (2), no appeal as of right lay from that order. CPLR 2211 requires service of a notice of motion or order to show cause, neither of which was served. The Appellate Term, Second Department, dismissed the appeal and declined to treat the notice of appeal as an application for leave under UDCA 1702 (c).

Reported in New York Official Reports at Vinings Spinal Diagnostic v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co. (2008 NY Slip Op 51534(U))

[*1]

Vinings Spinal Diagnostic v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co.

2008 NY Slip Op 51534(U) [20 Misc 3d 136(A)]

Decided on July 10, 2008

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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 10, 2008

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

APPELLATE TERM: 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS

PRESENT: : RUDOLPH, P.J., McCABE and SCHEINKMAN, JJ
2007-582 N C.

Vinings Spinal Diagnostic as assignee of MIA ONORATO, Appellant,
against
Progressive Casualty Insurance Company, Respondent.

Appeal from an order of the District Court of Nassau County, First District (Gary Franklin Knobel, J.), dated December 28, 2006. The order, insofar as appealed from as limited by the brief, directed plaintiff to provide defendant with an authorization executed by its assignor in order to obtain discovery of defendant’s no-fault file, and directed that plaintiff bear the costs of reproduction of said file (15 Misc 3d 270 [2006]).

Appeal dismissed.

The appeal from the order must be dismissed since no appeal as of right lies from an order which decides a motion which was not made on notice (UDCA 1702 [a] [2]; see Bottiglieri v Reilly, 15 Misc 3d 135[A], 2007 NY Slip Op 50750[U] [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2007]; see also 1223 Bushwick, LLC v Williams, 19 Misc 3d 128[A], 2008 NY Slip Op 50512[U] [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2008]). A motion is made on notice when a notice of motion or an order to show cause is served (CPLR 2211), and no notice of motion or order to show cause was served herein. Although, under appropriate circumstances, a court may deem a notice of appeal an application for leave to appeal and grant such leave (UDCA 1702 [c]; see e.g. Cervera v Bressler, 50 AD3d 837 [2008]; Vest v Vest, 50 AD3d 776 [2008]), we decline to do so in the instant case.

Rudolph, P.J., McCabe and Scheinkman, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: July 10, 2008

Cited in this decision

Vinings Spinal Diagnostic v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co. (2006 NY Slip Op 26539)A provider seeking discovery of its assignor's no-fault file must pay reasonable reproduction costs absent a basis to depart from the rule.

Similar decisions

Vinings Spinal Diagnostics v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co. (2008 NY Slip Op 51468(U))The insurer failed to prove that the provider used an improper claims address, leaving a factual issue about the denial's timeliness.
Vinings Spinal Diagnostic, P.C. v Geico Gen. Ins. Co. (2010 NY Slip Op 51897(U))The insurer's peer review and the provider's rebuttal created a triable issue of medical necessity, precluding provider summary judgment.
Vladenn Med. Supply Corp. v American Tr. Ins. Co. (2017 NY Slip Op 51230(U))The insurer established untimely accident notice and claim submission, together with a timely denial on both grounds.
New York Diagnostic Med. Care, P.C. v GEICO Cas. Ins. Co. (2012 NY Slip Op 52409(U))The provider's billing affidavit failed to establish overdue claims or timely denials that were legally deficient.
V.S. Medical Services, P.C. v New York Cent. Mut. Ins. (2008 NY Slip Op 51473(U))The insurer failed to prove the provider's noncompliance with a deposition order through an affidavit based on personal knowledge.