No-Fault Case Law
Active Care Med. Supply Corp. v Travelers Ins. Co. (2017 NY Slip Op 51034(U))
August 11, 2017
The court considered the case of Active Care Medical Supply Corp., as assignee of Guzman, Steven, appealing an order from the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County, which granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The main issue decided was whether the action by the plaintiff to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits was premature due to the plaintiff's failure to provide requested verification. The holding of the case was that the order of the Civil Court was reversed and the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint was denied, citing similar reasoning to another case decided herewith. This decision was reached by the Appellate Term, Second Department.
Active Care Med. Supply Corp. v Travelers Ins. Co. (2017 NY Slip Op 51033(U))
August 11, 2017
The relevant facts the court considered were that Active Care Medical Supply Corp. was seeking to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, but the defendant, Travelers Insurance Company, had filed a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the complaint on the grounds that the action was premature due to lack of requested verification. The main issue decided was whether the action by the provider was premature and if the plaintiff had failed to provide requested verification. The holding of the case was that the court reversed the lower court's order, denied the defendant's motion for summary judgment, and ruled in favor of Active Care Medical Supply Corp., allowing them to proceed with their action to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits.
Active Care Med. Supply Corp. v Travelers Ins. Co. (2017 NY Slip Op 51032(U))
August 11, 2017
The court considered the case of Active Care Medical Supply Corp., as Assignee of Thompson Johola, against Travelers Insurance Company. The main issue decided in this case was whether the provider had failed to provide requested verification for a claim for first-party no-fault benefits. The court held that the order granting the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint was reversed, and the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint was denied. The court based its decision on the reasoning in another case, Pierre Jean Jacques Renelique, as Assignee of Nathalia Brown v American Tr. Ins. Co., which was decided at the same time. The decision was made by Justices Pesce, Aliotta, and Solomon, and the order was reversed with a cost of $30.
Renelique v American Tr. Ins. Co. (2017 NY Slip Op 51031(U))
August 11, 2017
The court considered an appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County, which granted defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint in an action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits. The main issue decided was whether the action was premature because the plaintiff had failed to provide requested verification. The holding of the court was that the order granting the defendant's motion for summary judgment was reversed, and the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint was denied. The court cited a similar case in its decision, stating that for the reasons stated in that case, the order was reversed. The justices concurred with the decision to reverse the order and deny the defendant's motion for summary judgment.
Renelique v American Tr. Ins. Co. (2017 NY Slip Op 51027(U))
August 11, 2017
The relevant facts of the case involved Pierre Jean Jacques Renelique, as the assignee of Williams, Rennie, appealing from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County, which granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The main issue decided in this case was whether the action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits was premature because the plaintiff had failed to provide requested verification. The holding of the case was that the order granting the defendant's motion for summary judgment was reversed, and the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint was denied. The court found that for the reasons stated in Pierre Jean Jacques Renelique, as the Assignee of Nathalia Brown v American Tr. Ins. Co., the complaint should not be dismissed.
Chapa Prods. Corp. v Progressive Ins. Co. (2017 NY Slip Op 51026(U))
August 11, 2017
The court considered the appeal from an order of the Civil Court which granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint in an action to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits. The main issue decided was whether the action was premature because the plaintiff had failed to provide requested verification. The court reversed the order and denied the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, citing a related case for the reasons stated in that decision. The holding of the case was that the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint was denied, and the order was reversed.
TAM Med. Supply Corp. v American Tr. Ins. Co. (2017 NY Slip Op 51025(U))
August 11, 2017
The court considered an appeal from an order of the Civil Court which granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint brought by TAM Medical Supply Corp., as Assignee of Mussenden, Sheldon. The order was granted on the ground that the action was premature because plaintiff had failed to provide requested verification. The main issue decided was whether the action was premature due to the plaintiff's failure to provide requested verification. The holding of the case was that the order granting the defendant's motion for summary judgment was reversed, with $30 costs, and defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint was denied.
Renelique v American Tr. Ins. Co. (2017 NY Slip Op 51022(U))
August 11, 2017
The court considered an order granting the defendant's motion for summary judgment in a case where a provider was seeking to recover first-party no-fault benefits. The main issue decided was whether the action was premature due to the plaintiff's failure to provide requested verification. The court held that there was a triable issue of fact as to whether the action was premature, as the plaintiff's affidavit was sufficient to give rise to a presumption that the requested verification had been mailed to and received by the defendant. Therefore, the court reversed the order and denied the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
Clinton Place Med., P.C. v USAA Cas. Ins. Co. (2017 NY Slip Op 51016(U))
August 11, 2017
The main issue in the case was whether the provider, Clinton Place Medical, P.C., was entitled to recover first-party no-fault benefits, as it appealed the denial of their cross motion for summary judgment and the granting of the defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint, or alternatively, compel the plaintiff to respond to the defendant's discovery demands. The court considered the defendant's demand for various financial records and the owner of the plaintiff for an examination before trial, as well as the plaintiff's refusal to produce these records and comply with the demands. The holding of the case was that the order from the Civil Court, which granted the defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint and compel discovery, was affirmed. Therefore, the plaintiff was required to provide the requested financial records and produce the owner for an examination before trial.
Clinton Place Med., P.C. v USAA Cas. Ins. Co. (2017 NY Slip Op 51013(U))
August 11, 2017
The main issue in this case was whether the lower court erred in denying the plaintiff's cross motion for summary judgment and granting the defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint. The court considered the defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3126 or, in the alternative, to compel the plaintiff to respond to the defendant's notice for discovery and inspection, and its "demand for verified written interrogatories." The court held that the order of the Civil Court was affirmed, with the plaintiff being compelled to provide the defendant with verified responses to specific discovery demands and to produce the plaintiff's owner for an examination before trial. The court considered the reasons stated in a similar case and affirmed the decision of the lower court.