No-Fault Case Law

The relevant facts considered by the court in this case were that the plaintiff, a medical supply company, had failed to comply with a court-ordered examination before trial in a lawsuit seeking no-fault benefits from the defendant insurance company. The main issue decided was whether the plaintiff's failure to comply with the court-ordered examination before trial warranted dismissal of the plaintiff's action. The holding of the court was that the plaintiff's failure to comply with the court-ordered examination before trial resulted in a waste of judicial resources and could not be tolerated, leading to the dismissal of the complaint. The court also affirmed the denial of the plaintiff's motion for reargument and renewal, as there was no reasonable justification for the failure to present new facts that would change the prior determination.

The relevant facts considered by the court in this case include the denial of the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment in an action to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits. The plaintiff's motion was supported by an affirmation from their counsel, an affidavit by an officer of the plaintiff, and various documents annexed to the motion papers. However, the court found that the affidavit executed by the plaintiff's officer was insufficient to establish personal knowledge of the plaintiff's practices and procedures, and therefore failed to make a prima facie showing of entitlement to summary judgment. The main issue decided was whether the plaintiff had made a sufficient showing of entitlement to summary judgment, and the court held that they had not. The appeal from the order denying the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment was dismissed, and the order was affirmed without costs. The court also dismissed the appeal from the order entered February 22, 2006, as the plaintiff had raised no issue with respect to that order.

The relevant facts of the case were that a medical provider sought to recover assigned no-fault benefits from an insurance company and moved for a default judgment when the insurance company failed to appear or answer the complaint. The main issue decided was whether the medical provider had provided sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case in support of their motion for a default judgment. The court held that the medical provider's affidavit was insufficient to establish that the officer had personal knowledge of the provider's practices and procedures, so as to lay a foundation for the admission of the documents. Additionally, the court found that the medical provider had failed to establish that it had submitted the necessary claim forms to the insurance company. Therefore, the court affirmed the denial of the medical provider's motion for a default judgment.

The relevant facts considered by the court in this case were that the plaintiff, Capri Medical, P.C., was seeking to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits from the defendant, Allstate Insurance Company. The plaintiff's motion for summary judgment was supported by an affirmation from counsel, an affidavit by a corporate officer of the plaintiff, and various documents. However, the affidavit by the corporate officer was found to be insufficient to establish that the officer had personal knowledge of the plaintiff's practices and procedures to lay a foundation for the admission of the documents as business records. The main issue decided by the court was whether the plaintiff had made a prima facie showing of its entitlement to summary judgment. The court determined that the affidavit submitted by the plaintiff's corporate officer was insufficient, and as a result, the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case. The holding of the case was that the judgment in favor of the plaintiff was reversed, the order granting the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment was vacated, and the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment was denied. Therefore, the defendant, Allstate Insurance Company, prevailed in the case and was not required to pay the no-fault benefits to the plaintiff.

The main issue in this case was whether the provider, Fair Price Medical Supply Corp., was entitled to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits from Allstate Insurance Co. The court considered the evidence presented, including an affirmation from the provider's counsel, an affidavit from a corporate officer of the provider, and various documents. However, the court found that the affidavit executed by the provider's corporate officer did not sufficiently demonstrate personal knowledge of the facts set forth, and therefore failed to establish a prima facie case. As a result, the court affirmed the denial of the provider's motion for summary judgment, as they had not demonstrated their entitlement to the benefits in question. Therefore, the holding of the court was that the provider's motion for summary judgment was properly denied.

The court considered the fact that Vista Surgical Supplies, Inc. was seeking to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, and had moved for summary judgment. The main issue decided was whether the affidavit submitted by plaintiff's corporate officer laid a proper foundation for the documents annexed to plaintiff's moving papers, and whether this constituted a prima facie case. The holding of the court was that the affidavit was insufficient to establish that the officer possessed personal knowledge of plaintiff's practices and procedures, and therefore did not lay a proper foundation for the documents. As a result, plaintiff failed to make a prima facie showing of its entitlement to summary judgment, and the judgment in their favor was reversed, the order was vacated, and plaintiff's motion for summary judgment was denied.

The relevant facts considered by the court in this case were that Delta Diagnostic Radiology, P.C. was seeking to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits from Allstate Insurance Company. Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment was supported by an affirmation from plaintiff's counsel, an affidavit by an officer of plaintiff, and various documents annexed thereto. The court denied the motion on the ground that plaintiff failed to make a prima facie case because the affidavit executed by plaintiff's corporate officer was legally insufficient. Plaintiff appealed from the denial of its motion for summary judgment. The main issue decided in this case was whether the affidavit submitted by plaintiff's corporate officer was sufficient to establish that said officer possessed personal knowledge of plaintiff's practices and procedures so as to lay a foundation for the admission, as business records, of the documents annexed to plaintiff's moving papers. The holding of the case was that the affidavit was insufficient to establish the officer's personal knowledge, and therefore plaintiff failed to make a prima facie showing of its entitlement to summary judgment, resulting in the denial being affirmed.

The court considered whether the provider had established a prima facie case to recover first-party no-fault benefits from the insurance company. The main issue was whether the affidavits and documents submitted by the plaintiff's employee were sufficient to establish the plaintiff's business records. The court held that the affidavits were insufficient to establish that the employee possessed personal knowledge of the plaintiff's business practices and procedures, and therefore, failed to make a prima facie showing of its entitlement to summary judgment. As a result, the court affirmed the denial of plaintiff's motion for summary judgment.

The court considered the fact that the plaintiff commenced an action to recover first-party no-fault benefits for health care services rendered to its assignor, and the defendant moved to compel disclosure. The main issue decided was that the affidavit submitted by the plaintiff's corporate officer failed to lay a proper foundation for the documents annexed to the plaintiff's moving papers, and as a result, the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case. The holding was that plaintiff's cross motion for summary judgment was properly denied, and the branch of the order which granted the defendant's motion to the extent of requiring the plaintiff to appear by a treating physician for an examination before trial was entered on default. The appeal from so much of the order as granted the defendant's motion to compel disclosure was dismissed.

The plaintiff in this case, Dr. Deepika Bajaj, sought to recover no-fault first party benefits in the sum of $2,625.23 for medical services provided to his assignor. After participating in a mandatory arbitration, the parties resulted in an award in the plaintiff's favor against the defendant in the sum of $3,150.23, inclusive of attorney's fees. After the defendant attempted to file a demand for trial de novo which was rejected by the clerk, the defendant moved for an order compelling the acceptance of its demand and staying all efforts to enforce the judgment. The defendant argued that the arbitration rules are unconstitutional and in direct conflict with the Civil Practice Law and Rules. The court held that the defendant's demand for a trial de novo was timely and should have been accepted by the clerk, granting the defendant's motion.