No-Fault Case Law

The court considered an appeal from an order that granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and denied the plaintiff's cross motion for summary judgment in an action to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits. The main issue was whether the trial court erred in granting defendant's motion for summary judgment and denying plaintiff's cross motion for summary judgment. The holding of the court was that for the reasons stated in a related case, the order granting the defendant's motion for summary judgment was affirmed.

The court considered an appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County, in a case involving Precious Acupuncture Care, P.C., seeking to recover first-party no-fault benefits from GEICO General Insurance Company. GEICO appealed from an order denying its cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the fourth cause of action 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 services at issue. The court held that after reviewing the record, there was indeed a triable issue of fact regarding the medical necessity of the services, and therefore affirmed the order denying GEICO's cross motion for summary judgment.

The relevant facts of the case were that the plaintiff, Active Care Medical Supply Corp, sought to recover first-party no-fault benefits as the assignee of a individual. The defendant, American Transit Ins. Co., filed a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the complaint. The main issue decided was whether the plaintiff was entitled to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits. The holding of the court was that the order granting the defendant's motion for summary judgment was affirmed, and the plaintiff's complaint was dismissed.

The court considered the case of Active Care Medical Supply Corp appealing an order from the Civil Court of the City of New York, which granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The main issue was whether the provider could recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, and the court affirmed the order, with costs. The holding of the case was that the order granting the defendant's motion for summary judgment was affirmed, for the reasons stated in another similar case.

The court considered a case brought by a medical supply company seeking to recover first-party no-fault benefits from an insurance company. The insurance company had filed a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the complaint. The main issue decided was whether the medical supply company was entitled to the first-party no-fault benefits it sought. The court held that the order granting the insurance company's motion for summary judgment to dismiss the complaint was affirmed. The court cited a similar case in its decision.

The relevant facts considered by the court were that a provider was seeking to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, but the plaintiff had failed to appear for scheduled examinations under oath (EUOs) and the denial of claim forms had been timely mailed by the defendant. The main issue decided by the court was whether the affirmation submitted by the defendant's attorney was sufficient to establish that the plaintiff had failed to appear for the EUOs, and whether the affidavits submitted by the defendant established that the denial of claim forms had been timely mailed. The holding of the court was that the order, insofar as appealed from, was affirmed, as the affirmation submitted by the defendant's attorney was found to be sufficient to establish that the plaintiff had failed to appear for EUOs, and the affidavits submitted by the defendant established that the denial of claim forms had been timely mailed.

The case involved a dispute between an insurance company and a medical supply company over first-party no-fault benefits. The insurance company had scheduled an examination under oath (EUO) for the medical supply company, but the medical supply company failed to appear for the EUOs. The insurance company then moved for summary judgment to dismiss the complaint, arguing that the EUO scheduling letters had been timely mailed and that the medical supply company had failed to appear for the scheduled EUOs. The main issue before the court was whether the insurance company had properly scheduled the EUOs and whether the medical supply company's failure to appear justified the dismissal of the complaint. The court ultimately affirmed the lower court's order, holding that the insurance company had timely mailed the scheduling letters and that the medical supply company's failure to appear for the scheduled EUOs justified the dismissal of the complaint.

The court considered the fact that the plaintiff, Renelique Medical Services, P.C., failed to appear for duly scheduled examinations under oath (EUOs) in a case to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits. The main issue decided was whether the plaintiff's failure to attend the EUOs justified the granting of the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The holding of the court was that the defendant's proof was sufficient to demonstrate that the plaintiff had failed to appear for the EUOs, and therefore the order for summary judgment was affirmed. The court declined to consider the plaintiff's remaining contention as it was being raised for the first time on appeal.

The court considered the denial of motions for leave to reargue and vacate prior judgments which granted petitioner's applications to vacate master arbitration awards. The main issue decided was whether the judgments were obtained through fraud, misrepresentation, or other misconduct. The holding of the court was that the Civil Court properly denied the motions to vacate the judgments, as the respondents' contentions that the petitioner had knowledge of the alleged conflicts of the arbitrator amounted to nothing more than defense arguments which could have been asserted prior to the entry of judgment. Therefore, the orders affirming the denial of the motions were upheld, and the remaining arguments of the respondents were found to be unavailing.

The issue in this case was the determination of an arbitration award between Fast Care Medical Diagnostics, PLLC and Government Employees Insurance Co. (GEICO) in respect to medical services provided to an infant patient. Fast Care submitted claims for medical services rendered to a 15-year-old PV who was covered under no-fault insurance. However, GEICO deemed the treatment unnecessary and denied the claims, leading to arbitration. The court found that the arbitrator's award was irrational as it misapplied CPLR 1209 and disregarded established law, and further determined that the master arbitrator's ruling that the assignment of benefits was not effective was not based on any requirement set forth in the law or regulations. The order to vacate the awards and direct further arbitration proceedings as to the merits of Fast Care's claims was affirmed by the Supreme Court. Furthermore, Fast Care was not entitled to an award of an attorney's fee, as the arbitrator did not reach the issue of whether the subject claims were "overdue" under Insurance Law § 5106 [a].