No-Fault Case Law
Performance Plus Med., P.C. v Nationwide Ins. (2016 NY Slip Op 51538(U))
October 11, 2016
The court considered the case of Performance Plus Medical, P.C., seeking to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits from Nationwide Ins. The main issue decided was whether the action was premature because the plaintiff had allegedly failed to provide requested verification. The court ultimately reversed the order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, which had granted defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and denied defendant's motion for summary judgment. Therefore, the holding of the case was in favor of Performance Plus Medical, P.C., allowing them to continue their action to recover the assigned first-party no-fault benefits from Nationwide Ins.
LMS Acupuncture, P.C. v Nationwide Ins. (2016 NY Slip Op 51537(U))
October 11, 2016
The relevant facts of the case involved LMS Acupuncture, P.C. appealing an order from the Civil Court granting Nationwide Ins.'s motion for summary judgment, which dismissed the complaint. The issue decided was whether the action 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 was reversed, and Nationwide Ins.'s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint was denied, in line with the decision in another case, Performance Plus Med., P.C. v Nationwide Ins., decided at the same time. The decision was made by Pesce, P.J., Aliotta, and Solomon, JJ. on October 11, 2016.
Renelique v Tri State Consumers Ins. Co. (2016 NY Slip Op 51536(U))
October 11, 2016
The court considered the case of Pierre Jean Jacques Renelique, as the assignee of Sherita Johnson, who was appealing an order from the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County. The order granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, stating that the action was premature because the plaintiff had failed to provide requested verification. However, the court reversed the order and denied the defendant's motion for summary judgment, citing a similar case as precedent. The main issue decided was whether the provider could recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, and the holding of the court was that the defendant's motion for summary judgment was denied.
TAM Med. Supply Corp. v American Tr. Ins. Co. (2016 NY Slip Op 51513(U))
October 11, 2016
The relevant facts considered by the court in this case were that TAM Medical Supply Corp., as the assignee of Dor Guy Marcel, filed a motion for summary judgment to recover first-party no-fault benefits from American Transit Ins. Co. The court denied TAM Medical Supply Corp.'s motion for summary judgment and granted American Transit Ins. Co.'s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the basis that the action was premature due to TAM's failure to provide requested verification. The main issue decided in this case was whether the provider's action for no-fault benefits was premature due to failure to provide requested verification. The court ultimately held that the defendant's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint was denied, modifying the previous order to reflect this decision.
TAM Med. Supply Corp. v American Tr. Ins. Co. (2016 NY Slip Op 51512(U))
October 11, 2016
The court considered the denial of plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and the granting of defendant's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the action was premature because plaintiff had failed to provide requested verification in this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits. The main issue decided was whether the denial of plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and the granting of defendant's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint was appropriate. The holding of the case was that the order is modified by providing that defendant's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is denied; as so modified, the order is affirmed, without costs.
Island Life Chiropractic, P.C. v Travelers Ins. Co. (2016 NY Slip Op 51511(U))
October 11, 2016
In the case of Island Life Chiropractic, P.C. v Travelers Ins. Co., the court considered an appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County, which had granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment in dismissing the complaint. The main issue decided was whether the action was premature because the plaintiff had failed to provide requested verification in a case to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits. The court held that the defendant's proof was sufficient to demonstrate that the plaintiff had not provided the requested verification, and therefore, the action was premature. The court affirmed the order, stating that the defendant's motion for summary judgment had been granted correctly.
Performance Plus Med., P.C. v Nationwide Ins. (2016 NY Slip Op 51510(U))
October 11, 2016
The court considered the facts of the case, where Performance Plus Medical, P.C., as the assignee of Earl Best, brought an action to recover first-party no-fault benefits from Nationwide Ins. The main issue decided was whether the plaintiff's action was premature due to the failure to provide requested verification. The holding of the court was that the order granting defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint was reversed, and the defendant's motion for summary judgment was denied. The court stated that the action was not premature and the plaintiff's failure to provide requested verification did not warrant summary judgment in favor of the defendant.
TAM Med. Supply Corp. v 21st Century Ins. Co. (2016 NY Slip Op 51509(U))
October 11, 2016
The court considered that TAM Medical Supply Corp. was seeking to recover first-party no-fault benefits as the assignee of Arsene Macajoux. 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 dismissing the complaint was reversed and the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint was denied. The court's decision was based on a previous case, Mollo Chiropractic, PLLC, as Assignee of Miguel Concepcion v Farmington Cas. Co., and was made by Pesce, P.J., Aliotta, and Solomon, JJ.
TAM Med. Supply Corp. v American Tr. Ins. Co. (2016 NY Slip Op 51508(U))
October 11, 2016
The court considered an appeal from a denial of a motion for summary judgment in a case involving a provider seeking to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits. The main issue was whether the action was premature because the provider had failed to provide requested verification. The court held that the denial of the motion for summary judgment was to be modified by providing that the defendant's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint was denied, thus allowing the action to proceed. The court's decision was based on a similar case, TAM Med. Supply Corp., as Assignee of Shameca Dudley v National Liab. & Fire Ins. Co., and the judges Pesce, Aliotta, and Solomon all concurred.
TAM Med. Supply Corp. v American Tr. Ins. Co. (2016 NY Slip Op 51507(U))
October 11, 2016
The court considered the case of TAM Medical Supply Corp. v American Transit Ins. Co., in which the plaintiff, TAM Medical Supply Corp., sought to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits. The Civil Court denied the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and granted the defendant's cross motion for summary judgment, dismissing the complaint on the basis that the action was premature due to the plaintiff's failure to provide requested verification. The main issue decided was whether the plaintiff's failure to provide requested verification rendered the action premature. The holding of the case was that the defendant's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint was denied, as the court found that the action was not premature due to the failure to provide requested verification. Therefore, the court modified the order to provide that the defendant's motion for summary judgment was denied.