No-Fault Case Law
Flatbush Chiropractic, P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (2017 NY Slip Op 51496(U))
November 3, 2017
The court considered the fact that the plaintiff, Flatbush Chiropractic, P.C., had failed to appear for scheduled examinations under oath as required by the defendant, State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co., in a first-party no-fault benefits case. The main issue that was decided was whether the plaintiff's failure to appear for the examinations under oath warranted the dismissal of the complaint. The court held that the plaintiff's failure to appear for the examinations under oath was grounds for granting the defendant's motion for summary judgment and dismissing the complaint. The court affirmed the order of the Civil Court, with costs of $25.
Flatbush Chiropractic, P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (2017 NY Slip Op 51495(U))
November 3, 2017
The court considered the fact that Flatbush Chiropractic, P.C. was seeking to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits from State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. The main issue decided was whether the plaintiff had failed to appear for duly scheduled examinations under oath, which resulted in the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The holding of the case was that the court affirmed the order granting the defendant's motion for summary judgment, on the grounds that the plaintiff had indeed failed to appear for duly scheduled examinations under oath. The court's decision was based on the same reasoning as another case decided with it, and the order was affirmed with costs.
Flatbush Chiropractic, P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (2017 NY Slip Op 51494(U))
November 3, 2017
The court considered an appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County, which granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The main issue decided was whether the plaintiff had failed to appear for duly scheduled examinations under oath (EUOs), which would result in the dismissal of the complaint. The holding of the case was that the affirmation submitted by the defendant's attorney was sufficient to establish that the plaintiff had indeed failed to appear for the EUOs, and therefore the order granting the defendant's motion for summary judgment was affirmed.
Flatbush Chiropractic, P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (2017 NY Slip Op 51493(U))
November 3, 2017
The court considered the motion for summary judgment filed by the defendant, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., in response to an action by Flatbush Chiropractic, P.C. to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits. The main issue decided was whether the plaintiff failed to appear for scheduled examinations under oath, and whether this failure justified the granting of the defendant's motion for summary judgment. The holding of the court was that the order granting the defendant's motion for summary judgment to dismiss the complaint was affirmed, with the court citing a previous decision in a similar case for the reasons for the decision.
Flatbush Chiropractic, P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (2017 NY Slip Op 51492(U))
November 3, 2017
The relevant facts the court considered in the case were that Flatbush Chiropractic, P.C. was seeking to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits from State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. The main issue decided was whether the plaintiff had failed to appear for duly scheduled examinations under oath. The holding of the case was that the appellate term affirmed the lower court's decision to grant the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, based on the plaintiff's failure to appear for scheduled examinations under oath. The court affirmed the decision with $25 costs, citing a related case for the reasons for the affirmance.
Flatbush Chiropractic, P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (2017 NY Slip Op 51490(U))
November 3, 2017
The court considered a provider's attempt to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits from an insurance company. The main issue decided in this case was whether the provider had failed to appear for duly scheduled examinations under oath, which led to the dismissal of the complaint. The holding of the court was that the order granting the insurance company's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint was affirmed, as the provider had indeed failed to appear for the scheduled examinations under oath.
Restoration Chiropractic, P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (2017 NY Slip Op 51489(U))
November 3, 2017
The court considered the case of Restoration Chiropractic, P.C. v State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., in which the plaintiff, Restoration Chiropractic, P.C., as assignee of Carreras, Kevin, appealed from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York that granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The main issue decided was whether the plaintiff had failed to appear for duly scheduled examinations under oath, which was the grounds for the defendant's motion for summary judgment. The holding of the court was that based on the reasons stated in a similar case, the order of the Civil Court was affirmed, with the plaintiff being required to pay $25 in costs.
Easy Care Acupuncture, PC v Hartford Ins. Co. (2017 NY Slip Op 51471(U))
November 1, 2017
The court considered the appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, where the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and denying the plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment was granted. The main issue decided was whether the trial court erred in granting the defendant's motion for summary judgment and denying the plaintiff's cross-motion. The holding of the case was that the order of the Civil Court was modified to the extent of denying the defendant's motion for summary judgment and reinstating the complaint. The court affirmed the order as modified, with costs.
Easy Care Acupuncture, PC v Hartford Ins. Co. (2017 NY Slip Op 51470(U))
November 1, 2017
The court considered the evidentiary proof submitted by the defendant-insurer, which demonstrated a "founded belief" that the injuries sustained in a staged accident. However, the court found that this evidence was insufficient to warrant summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The main issue decided was whether the injuries arose out of an insured incident, and the court held that the first party, no-fault action was not susceptible to summary disposition. As a result, the court modified the order to deny the defendant's motion for summary judgment and reinstated the complaint, affirming it with costs of $10.
XVV, Inc. v Interboro Ins. Co. (2017 NY Slip Op 51468(U))
October 27, 2017
The court considered an appeal from an order of the Civil Court which denied the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and granted the defendant's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The main issue decided was whether the defendant had raised a triable issue of fact as to whether it had not received all requested verification, and if this action was premature. The holding of the case was that the defendant did not demonstrate that the action was premature, as its papers did not show that the specific verification at issue had ever been requested from the plaintiff. Therefore, the judgment of the Civil Court was affirmed.