No-Fault Case Law

The court considered the fact that the plaintiff, Great Wall Acupuncture, moved for summary judgment in an action to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits. The main issue was whether the affidavit submitted by the plaintiff's corporate officer established a proper foundation for the admission of the documents annexed to the plaintiff's moving papers. The court held that the affidavit submitted by the plaintiff's corporate officer was insufficient to establish that the officer possessed personal knowledge of the plaintiff's practices and procedures, and therefore failed to lay a foundation for the admission of the documents as business records. As a result, the court reversed the order granting plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and denied the motion.

The main issues in this case were whether the plaintiff's assignor attended duly requested examinations under oath and an independent medical examination, and whether the affidavit submitted by the plaintiff's corporate officer laid a proper foundation for the admission of documents annexed to the plaintiff's moving papers. The court denied the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, finding that there was an issue of fact regarding the attendances at the examinations and the sufficiency of the affidavit. On appeal, the defendant argued that the affidavit failed to lay a proper foundation for the admission of the documents, and the court agreed. The court affirmed the order denying the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on other grounds, finding that the plaintiff failed to make a prima facie showing of its entitlement to summary judgment. Therefore, the holding of the case was that the order denying the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment was affirmed.

The court considered the fact that Great Wall Acupuncture was seeking to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits from Peerless Ins. Co. The main issue decided was whether Great Wall Acupuncture had established its prima facie entitlement to summary judgment by proving the submission of a statutory claim form and the fact and amount of the loss sustained. The holding of the court was that Great Wall Acupuncture had indeed established its prima facie case, and the motion for summary judgment was granted. The matter was remanded to the court for the calculation of statutory interest and an assessment of attorney's fees. The court also found that the facts offered in support of the defense by Peerless Ins. Co. were not submitted in admissible form and were insufficient to establish a triable issue of coverage.

The relevant facts that the court considered were the denial of the petitioner's claims for first-party no-fault benefits by the master arbitrator, which was upheld by the arbitrator's award. The main issue decided was whether there was a rational basis for the determination of the master arbitrator in denying the claims for benefits. The holding of the case was that the court found a rational basis for the master arbitrator's determination and upheld the arbitrator's award, denying the petition to vacate the award and confirming it instead. The judgment of the Civil Court was modified to include a provision confirming the master arbitrator's award, and the decision was affirmed.

The main issue in this case was whether the defendant had presented enough evidence to show that there was a triable issue of fact regarding whether the injuries sustained by the plaintiff's assignors were covered under their insurance policy. The court considered the affidavit submitted by the defendant's investigator, which claimed that the injuries suffered by the assignor Vladimir Titiov did not arise from an insured incident, and found it sufficient to demonstrate a triable issue of fact. As a result, the plaintiff was not granted summary judgment for Vladimir Titiov. However, the affidavit submitted in relation to the other assignors, Nadiya Basista, Viktor Belousov, and Eduard Kholoditsky, was found to be insufficient to demonstrate a founded belief that their injuries did not arise from an insured incident, so summary judgment was granted for these assignors. The holding of the court was that the defendant had demonstrated a triable issue of fact regarding coverage for some of the assignors, and summary judgment was granted accordingly for those assignors.

The main issues in this case were whether the affidavit submitted by the plaintiff's corporate officer laid a proper foundation for the admission of the documents annexed to the plaintiff's moving papers, and whether the plaintiff had made a prima facie showing of its entitlement to summary judgment in an action to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits. The court considered the insufficiency of the affidavit to establish that the officer possessed personal knowledge of the plaintiff's practices and procedures. The court ultimately held that the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment was properly denied because the affidavit failed to lay a proper foundation for the admission of the documents as business records, and thus plaintiff failed to make a prima facie showing of its entitlement to summary judgment. Therefore, the order of the Civil Court denying the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment was affirmed.

The court considered the evidence presented by the plaintiff in support of their motion for summary judgment, which included an affirmation from plaintiff's counsel, an affidavit by a corporate officer of the plaintiff, and various documents. The main issue decided in the case was whether the affidavit executed by the plaintiff's corporate officer was legally sufficient to establish the officer's personal knowledge of the plaintiff's practices and procedures to lay a foundation for the admission of the documents as business records. The court held that the affidavit was insufficient to establish personal knowledge, and therefore, the plaintiff failed to make a prima facie showing of its entitlement to summary judgment. As a result, the court affirmed the order denying plaintiff's motion for summary judgment.

This case involves a dispute over first-party no-fault benefits. The plaintiff, the medical supplier, moved for summary judgment based on the argument that the defendant insurance company failed to provide claim forms in a timely manner. Defendant's opposing papers did not present proof to establish that the denial of claim forms were timely mailed to plaintiff. The court held that the defendant's failure to establish timely mailing precluded them from raising the defense of lack of medical necessity. Thus, the court reversed the trial court's order and granted plaintiff's summary judgment. It also remanded the matter back to the trial court for a calculation of statutory interest and attorney's fees.

The main issue in this case was whether the plaintiff, a healthcare provider seeking to recover first-party no-fault benefits, was entitled to summary judgment. The defendant had timely denied the claims, and the court ruled that the affidavit submitted by the plaintiff's corporate officer did not lay a proper foundation for the documents annexed to the moving papers. As a result, the plaintiff failed to make a prima facie case for entitlement to summary judgment. The court affirmed the lower court's denial of the motion for summary judgment, and the parties' remaining contentions were not addressed. Therefore, the holding of the case was that the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment was properly denied.

St. Vincent's Hospital & Medical Center sought to recover no-fault medical payments from AllState Insurance Company. AllState appealed an order by the Supreme Court, Nassau County, which denied its motion to vacate a clerk's judgment entered upon its failure to appear or answer, and for leave to serve a late answer. The defendant claimed a reasonable excuse for its delay in appearing, and a potentially meritorious defense, and the Appellate Division concluded that the Supreme Court had improvidently exercised its discretion in denying the motion. The Appellate Division reversed the order, allowing the defendant's motion, vacating the clerk's judgment, and deeming the answer served on the plaintiff. The Supreme Court's decision was reversed and the defendant's motion to vacate the judgment and serve a late answer was granted.