No-Fault Case Law

The relevant facts in this case were that three medical service providers were seeking to recover first-party no-fault benefits from an insurance company. The providers moved for summary judgment, and the insurance company cross-moved for summary judgment to dismiss the complaint. The main issue decided by the court was whether the providers had made a prima facie showing of their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, and whether the insurance company had submitted sufficient proof to support its defense that the providers were fraudulently incorporated. The holding of the court was that the providers failed to make a prima facie showing of their entitlement to summary judgment, as the affidavit submitted by their medical biller did not establish that the documents annexed to their moving papers were admissible. Therefore, the court affirmed the order denying the providers' motion for summary judgment.

The court considered a motion for summary judgment in an action by medical providers to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits. The main issue decided was whether the affidavit submitted by the plaintiffs' medical biller was legally sufficient. The court denied the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on the grounds that the affidavit failed to establish that the documents annexed to the moving papers were admissible pursuant to CPLR 4518. As a result, the plaintiffs failed to make a prima facie showing of their entitlement to summary judgment, and their motion was properly denied. Therefore, the holding of the case was that the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment was denied.

The case involved an appeal from an order denying a motion by defendant to compel plaintiff to accept its late answer or extend its time to serve the answer in a first-party no-fault benefits action. The court considered whether defendant had demonstrated a reasonable excuse for the default and a meritorious defense. The court held that defendant's contention that plaintiff should be compelled to accept its answer was without merit, and defendant failed to establish a reasonable excuse for the default. Therefore, the order denying defendant's motion was affirmed.

The relevant facts considered by the court were that the plaintiff, Ranbow Supply of NY, Inc., sought to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits from the defendant, NY Central Mutual Fire Ins. Co. Defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, which was granted by the Civil Court. However, the affidavit of the defendant's claims representative failed to establish the defendant's entitlement to summary judgment due to a lack of medical necessity. The affidavit was inconsistent, stating that the defendant did not receive the claims at issue prior to the commencement of the action while also stating that it received the claims on specified dates prior to the commencement of the action and timely denied them. The main issue decided was whether the defendant was entitled to summary judgment, and the holding of the court was that the order granting defendant's motion for summary judgment was reversed and defendant's motion for summary judgment was denied.

The court considered the denial of the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment in an action to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, finding that the affidavit submitted by the plaintiff was insufficient to lay a foundation for the admission of documents as business records. The court also granted the defendant's cross motion for summary judgment, dismissing the complaint on the grounds of lack of medical necessity for the supplies provided, with the plaintiff failing to file any opposition to rebut the defendant's evidence. The main issue decided was whether the plaintiff demonstrated a prima facie entitlement to summary judgment. The holding of the case was that the appeal was dismissed, as the plaintiff did not offer any argument as to why the court should reverse the portion of the order which granted the defendant's cross motion for summary judgment. Ultimately, the outcome of the case would not be altered.

The main issue in this case was whether the defendant's motion to vacate the notice of trial and certificate of readiness should have been granted, despite the plaintiff's claim that discovery was complete. The relevant facts included the defendant's assertion that they had not completed discovery, whereas the plaintiff argued that they had. The decision of the court was to reverse the order denying the defendant's motion and to grant their motion to vacate the notice of trial and certificate of readiness. The court found that the plaintiff's certificate of readiness contained an erroneous statement that discovery was completed or waived, and therefore, the notice of trial and certificate of readiness should be vacated. Additionally, the court noted that the doctrine of laches did not warrant denial of the defendant's motion.

The relevant facts of this case include an action brought by a surgical supplies company to recover no-fault benefits from an insurance company, as well as the insurance company's motion for summary judgment to dismiss the complaint. The main issue decided by the court was whether the insurance company's motion for summary judgment should have been granted, and if the company demonstrated its prima facie entitlement to summary judgment. The holding of the court was that the insurance company failed to demonstrate entitlement to summary judgment due to inconsistency in its affidavit and that there was an issue of fact regarding the authenticity of signatures on peer review reports submitted in support of the motion. Therefore, the court reversed the order granting summary judgment, denied the insurance company's motion, and allowed the case to proceed.

The court considered the dispute between Bath Medical Supply, Inc. and Utica Mutual Insurance Company regarding the recovery of assigned first-party no-fault benefits. The main issue decided was whether the evidence presented by Bath Medical Supply, Inc. was sufficient to establish a prima facie case in their favor. The court held that Bath Medical Supply, Inc. failed to establish the admissibility of the claim forms as business records, and therefore, did not establish a prima facie case. As a result, the court affirmed the judgment dismissing Bath Medical Supply, Inc.'s complaint against Utica Mutual Insurance Company.

The main issue in this case was whether the court was correct in granting the defendant's cross motion to strike the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3126 due to the plaintiff's failure to comply with a so-ordered stipulation. The court held that the judgment should be reversed and so much of the order entered December 19, 2005 as granted the defendant's cross motion to strike the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3126 should be vacated. The court found that the so-ordered stipulation did not schedule the plaintiff's examination before trial (EBT) for a specific date, only stating that it should occur on or before a certain date. As such, the defendant failed to establish that the plaintiff breached the stipulation and therefore, the defendant's cross motion should have been denied. The court also noted that the defendant's cross motion was served slightly later than the date set by the court, but it was served more than 4 months before the motion and cross motion were returnable, and the plaintiff did not demonstrate any prejudice as a result of the delay.

The court considered the fact that the provider in this case had established a prima facie case to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits. The main issue decided was whether the December 2005 order, deciding a summary judgment motion in a prior case between the parties, should have collateral estoppel effect in the present action. The court held that the provider failed to show that the identical issues were decided in the prior action, and that the defendant met its burden of proving that the loss did not arise out of an insured incident. Therefore, the judgment to dismiss the complaint was affirmed.