No-Fault Case Law
Colonia Med., P.C. v Allstate Ins. Co. (2007 NY Slip Op 50679(U))
March 28, 2007
The court considered the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment in a case seeking to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits. The motion was supported by an affirmation from the plaintiff's counsel, an affidavit by an officer of the plaintiff, and various documents. However, the court denied the motion on the ground that the affidavit executed by the plaintiff's corporate officer failed to set forth facts sufficient to demonstrate personal knowledge of the facts. The main issue decided was whether the affidavit provided sufficient personal knowledge to establish the admissibility of the documents as business records. The holding was that the plaintiff failed to make a prima facie showing of its entitlement to summary judgment due to the insufficiency of the affidavit, and thus the denial of the motion for summary judgment was upheld. The appeal from the denial of the motion to vacate the previous order and renew the motion for summary judgment was dismissed as abandoned.
Delta Diagnostic Radiology, P.C. v Statewide Ins. Co. (2007 NY Slip Op 50677(U))
March 28, 2007
The court considered the motion for summary judgment in an action by a provider to recover first-party no-fault benefits, which was supported by an affirmation from plaintiff's counsel, an affidavit by a corporate officer of plaintiff, and various documents. The main issue decided was whether the affidavit executed by plaintiff's corporate officer was legally sufficient to establish that the officer possessed personal knowledge of plaintiff's practices and procedures, in order to lay a foundation for the admission of the documents as business records. The court held 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. As a result, the court affirmed the denial of plaintiff's motion for summary judgment.
Great Wall Acupuncture v Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. (2007 NY Slip Op 50676(U))
March 28, 2007
The relevant facts the court considered were that Great Wall Acupuncture was seeking to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits from Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment was supported by an affirmation from plaintiff's counsel, an affidavit by an employee of plaintiff, and various documents. The main issue decided was whether plaintiff's moving papers established plaintiff's prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. The holding of the case was that the affidavit submitted by plaintiff's employee was insufficient to establish that the employee had personal knowledge of plaintiff's practices and procedures, and therefore, plaintiff failed to make a prima facie showing of its entitlement to summary judgment. The denial of plaintiff's motion for summary judgment was affirmed without costs.
Global Med. Equip., Inc v Allstate Ins. Co. (2007 NY Slip Op 50675(U))
March 28, 2007
The court considered the fact that plaintiff moved for summary judgment to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits which defendant opposed on the ground that plaintiff did not establish that defendant issued an untimely denial of the claim. The issue at hand was whether plaintiff needed to demonstrate that defendant's denial was untimely as part of plaintiff's prima facie case. The court held that a provider generally establishes its prima facie entitlement to summary judgment through proof of the submission of a statutory claim form, setting forth the fact and the amount of the loss sustained, and that payment of no-fault benefits was overdue. Since defendant failed to raise any substantive defense in admissible form, the timeliness of defendant's denial was rendered academic and the order was affirmed.
Delta Diagnostic Radiology, P.C. v Allstate Ins. Co. (2007 NY Slip Op 50673(U))
March 28, 2007
The court considered the fact that the plaintiff, a provider seeking to recover no-fault benefits, had moved for summary judgment, while the defendant had cross-moved to compel examinations before trial of the plaintiff and the plaintiff's assignor. The main issue decided was whether the defendant's motion to compel examinations before trial should be granted. The court ultimately held that the appeal was dismissed as academic, as the action had been dismissed by the Civil Court for failure to obtain a stay of enforcement and for failure to appear for the ordered examinations before trial. The holding of the case was that the dismissal of the action rendered the appeal academic.
A.M. Med. Servs., P.C. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co. (2007 NY Slip Op 50671(U))
March 28, 2007
The court considered the fact that A.M. Medical Services, P.C. was seeking to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, and that their motion for summary judgment was supported by an affirmation from plaintiff's counsel, an affidavit by a corporate officer of plaintiff, and various documents annexed thereto. However, the affidavit executed by plaintiff's corporate officer was insufficient 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 main issue decided was whether or not the plaintiff had made a prima facie showing of its entitlement to summary judgment. The holding was that the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment was properly denied, as they failed to make a prima facie showing of their entitlement to it.
Midwood Med. Equip. Supply, Inc. v NY Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. (2007 NY Slip Op 50670(U))
March 28, 2007
The court considered the facts of a case where a provider was seeking to recover first-party no-fault benefits. The provider moved for summary judgment and supported their motion with an affirmation from their counsel, an affidavit by a corporate officer, and various documents. However, the affidavit by the corporate officer was found to be insufficient in laying a proper foundation for the documents annexed to the motion papers. The court held that the officer failed to establish personal knowledge of the provider's practices and procedures, therefore failing to make a prima facie showing of entitlement to summary judgment. As a result, the branch of the order granting the provider's motion for summary judgment was reversed, and the motion was denied.
The main issue decided was whether the provider had established a prima facie case for entitlement to summary judgment, and the holding of the court was that they had not, and therefore the motion for summary judgment was denied.
Delta Diagnostic Radiology, P.C. v Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. (2007 NY Slip Op 50666(U))
March 28, 2007
The court considered whether the plaintiff, Delta Diagnostic Radiology, P.C., was entitled to summary judgment in a case to recover first-party no-fault benefits. The main issue decided was whether the plaintiff made a prima facie showing of its entitlement to summary judgment. The court held that the plaintiff did not make a prima facie showing, as 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 did not lay a sufficient foundation for the admission of the documents annexed to the plaintiff's moving papers as business records. As a result, the court affirmed the denial of the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment.
Impulse Chiropractic, P.C. v Kemper Ins. Co. (2007 NY Slip Op 50665(U))
March 28, 2007
The main issues in this case involved an action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits. The plaintiff moved for summary judgment, but the defendant opposed on the basis that it timely denied the claims due to the assignor's failure to appear for scheduled independent medical examinations. The defendant cross-moved to dismiss the complaint for the plaintiff's failure to appear at an examination before trial. The court below denied the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and granted the defendant's cross-motion to the extent of compelling the plaintiff to appear for an examination before trial. The Appellate Term determined that the defendant failed to establish the existence of a triable issue of fact and reversed the order. The holding of the case was that the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment was granted, and the matter was remanded to the court below for the calculation of statutory interest and an assessment of attorney's fees.
A.B. Med. Servs. PLLC v State-Wide Ins. Co. (2007 NY Slip Op 50663(U))
March 28, 2007
The relevant facts the court considered in this case were that the plaintiffs were seeking to recover first-party no-fault benefits, but their motion for summary judgment was denied by the lower court due to issues regarding compliance with independent medical examination (IME) requests. The main issue decided was whether the defendant's submission of an affidavit from an employee was sufficient to establish that the IME notices were mailed. The holding of the case was that the affidavit submitted by the defendant was indeed sufficient to establish that the IME notices were mailed, and therefore the order denying the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment was affirmed.