No-Fault Case Law

The court considered whether the plaintiff, LMS Acupuncture, P.C., had failed to appear for scheduled examinations under oath (EUOs) as required by the defendant, State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co., in order to recover first-party no-fault benefits. The defendant appealed from an order of the Civil Court denying their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The main issue decided was whether the plaintiff had failed to appear for the EUOs, and if so, whether the claims had been timely denied on that ground. The holding of the case was that the defendant was entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaint, as the plaintiff had failed to raise a triable issue of fact in opposition to the defendant's motion. Therefore, the defendant's motion for summary judgment was granted and the order of the Civil Court was reversed.

The main issue in this case was whether the plaintiff's assignor had failed to appear for two properly scheduled independent medical examinations (IMEs) and if that justified the dismissal of the complaint. The court considered whether the defendant had established that it had mailed letters scheduling the IMEs, as required by law. The court found that the defendant had not established that it had mailed the scheduling letters and therefore the branch of the defendant's motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the complaint on this ground should not have been granted. The court also noted that the defendant's motion was based on the additional ground that it had paid the plaintiff for the services at issue in accordance with the workers' compensation fee schedule, but this branch of the defendant's motion was not decided by the Civil Court. The court held that the matter should be remitted for a determination of that branch of the defendant's motion. Therefore, the court reversed the order and remitted the matter to the Civil Court for a determination on the remaining branch of the defendant's motion.

The main issue in this case was whether the defendant, Allstate Insurance Company, should be allowed to vacate a default judgment entered in favor of the plaintiff, Bayshore Chiropractic, P.C., as Assignee of Isabella Cifone. The defendant argued that its failure to oppose the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and the resulting default judgment was due to law office failure during the transfer of the case file from prior counsel. However, the court found that the defendant's claim of law office failure was insufficient to constitute a reasonable excuse for the default, as it was ultimately the result of attorney neglect. Since the defendant did not have a reasonable excuse for the default, the court did not consider whether the defendant demonstrated the existence of a potentially meritorious defense to the action. Therefore, the order denying the defendant's motion to vacate the default judgment was affirmed.

The main issue in this case was whether the plaintiff, who had been offered a job at a new company at a salary of $2,000 per week with benefits, was entitled to recover no-fault benefits for lost wages after sustaining injuries in a car accident. The court considered the fact that the plaintiff had significant experience in the automotive parts industry, had been unemployed for seven months prior to the accident, and that the company offering him the job was in a state of disrepair after being affected by a hurricane. The court ultimately held that the plaintiff was not entitled to recover lost wages as the evidence showed that the company was in financial distress, had ceased operations, and was ultimately sold for only $40,000. The court reversed the order of the Supreme Court, granted the defendant summary judgment, and dismissed the complaint.

The court considered a case in which a provider was seeking to recover first-party no-fault benefits. The main issue decided was whether the provider was entitled to summary judgment, and whether the defendant's cross motion for summary judgment should be granted to dismiss the complaint. The holding of the court was that the defendant's cross motion for summary judgment to dismiss the complaint was denied. The court referred to a similar case, Island Life Chiropractic, P.C. v. Country Wide Ins. Co., to support this decision. The decision was made by the Appellate Term, Second Department.

The relevant facts considered by the court were that the plaintiff, Gentlecare Ambulatory Anesthesia Services, and Lyonel F. Paul, M.D., as Assignees of Stevenson, Connie, appealed an order from the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County, denying plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and granting defendant's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The main issue decided in the case was whether the provider was entitled to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits from the defendant, Country Wide Insurance Company. The holding of the case was that defendant's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint was denied, and the order was modified accordingly. The court referenced a previous case, Island Life Chiropractic, P.C. v Country Wide Ins. Co., to support their decision.

The main issue in this case was whether the trial court erred in tolling the accrual of postjudgment interest on the amount of a default judgment and in compelling the plaintiff to file a satisfaction of judgment. The court found that the plaintiff, as the prevailing party, was not required to make a demand for the money and did not cause the delay in paying the judgment, so the trial court erred in tolling the accrual of interest on the judgment. However, the defendant demonstrated that they had partially paid the judgment and were entitled to the entry of a partial satisfaction of judgment in the amount of $22,999.70. The appellate term court reversed the previous order and denied the defendant's motion to toll the accrual of postjudgment interest, but granted the motion to direct the clerk to enter a partial satisfaction of judgment in the amount of $22,999.70.

The relevant facts in this case involved a provider seeking to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits from an insurance company. The main issue was whether the insurance company's defense under State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v Mallela was subject to the preclusion rule. The court held that the defense did not need to be preserved in a timely denial, and therefore, the insurance company's discovery demands were not palpably improper. The court affirmed the order, stating that the "Mallela defense" does not need to be preserved in a timely denial, and therefore, the discovery demands at issue were appropriate.

The main issue in this case was whether the provider, New Millennium Medical Imaging, P.C., was entitled to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits from American Transit Ins. Co. The court considered the denial of the plaintiff's cross motion for summary judgment and the late opposition papers filed by the defendant, which raised a triable issue of fact as to whether the claims had been timely denied. The court affirmed the denial of the cross motion for summary judgment, stating that the Civil Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in considering the defendant's late opposition papers and finding that they raised a triable issue of fact. Therefore, the holding of the case was that the denial of the cross motion for summary judgment was affirmed.

The relevant facts that the court considered in this case were that Compas Medical, P.C. was seeking to recover first-party no-fault benefits as the assignee of Pierre, Eddy. Compas Medical, P.C. moved for summary judgment, but Hereford Insurance Co. opposed the motion and cross-moved for summary judgment, arguing that insurance coverage was not provided for the vehicle involved in the accident at the time of the incident. The main issue decided by the court was whether Hereford Insurance Co. was obligated to provide insurance coverage for the vehicle on the date of the accident in question. The court ultimately held that the order denying the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and granting the defendant's cross motion for summary judgment was affirmed. In summary, the court considered the insurance coverage for the vehicle at the time of the accident and ultimately decided in favor of Hereford Insurance Co., affirming the denial of the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and the granting of the defendant's cross motion for summary judgment.