No-Fault Case Law

The court considered whether American Transit Insurance Company (American Transit) was obligated to pay no-fault insurance benefits to medical providers for treating Jeremy Martinez. The main issue was whether a default judgment against Martinez, who had assigned his right to collect benefits to the medical providers, would preclude the medical providers from claiming benefits. The court held that the default judgment against Martinez did not prevent the medical providers from asserting a claim to no-fault benefits. Additionally, the court considered whether Martinez's failure to appear for scheduled independent medical examinations (IMEs) would defeat coverage under the no-fault policy and foreclose the medical providers' claim to benefits. The court held that American Transit had not demonstrated compliance with procedural and timeliness requirements for scheduling IMEs, and therefore, American Transit was not entitled to summary judgment against the medical providers.

The court considered whether the defendant, American Transit Insurance Company, was obligated to pay no-fault insurance benefits to various medical providers, including defendant City Wide Health Facility Inc., under a no-fault insurance policy. The case revolved around Wildex, who was involved in a collision and assigned the right to collect no-fault benefits to the medical providers. American Transit brought an action for a declaratory judgment that it is not required to pay no-fault benefits to Wildex or the other defendants. The main issue decided was whether the default-judgment against Wildex barred City Wide's claim for benefits, and whether American Transit was entitled to summary judgment against City Wide based on the prior judgment against Wildex. The court held that City Wide's claim for benefits was not barred by the default judgment against Wildex, and that American Transit was not entitled to summary judgment against City Wide. The court ruled that American Transit did not comply with the procedural requirements for denying no-fault coverage due to Wildex's failure to appear for independent medical examinations. Therefore, the motion for summary judgment was denied.

The court considered the fact that the vehicle in question was insured by the defendant under a Florida automobile insurance policy. An investigation revealed that the insured did not reside at the Florida address listed on the insurance application, and the insured vehicle was not being garaged in Florida for the stated period. As a result, the insurance company rescinded the policy ab initio based on the applicant's misrepresentations in procuring the policy, as permitted by Florida law. The main issue decided was whether the insurance policy was correctly rescinded under Florida law, and the court held that the insurance company had established, prima facie, that it voided the policy ab initio in accordance with Florida law. The court also declined to consider plaintiff's remaining arguments as they were raised for the first time on appeal. Therefore, the order denying plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and granting the defendant's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint was affirmed.

The relevant facts of the case involve Psychmetrics Medical, P.C., as an assignee of Dmitriy Morozov, appealing against State Farm Mutual Insurance Co. The main issue in this case was whether the delay in prosecuting the action by the plaintiff warranted the dismissal of the complaint on the ground of laches. The Court reversed the decision of the Civil Court of New York, which had granted the defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground of laches. The Court found that the delay in prosecuting the action did not warrant dismissal on the ground of laches, and remitted the matter to the Civil Court for a determination of the remaining branches of the defendant's motion. The holding of the case was that the branch of the defendant's motion seeking to dismiss the complaint on the ground of laches was denied, and the matter was remitted to the Civil Court for a determination of the remaining branches of the defendant's motion.

The main issue in this case was whether the branch of defendant's motion seeking to dismiss the complaint on the ground of laches should be granted. The court considered the delay in prosecuting the action and whether this delay warranted the dismissal of the complaint. The court ultimately held that the branch of defendant's motion seeking to dismiss the complaint on the ground of laches is denied, and the matter is remitted to the Civil Court for a determination of the remaining branches of defendant's motion. The court reversed the order of the Civil Court and found that the remaining branches of the motion were moot.

The court considered a motion by the defendant to dismiss the complaint on the ground of laches due to the plaintiff's delay in prosecuting the action to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits. The main issue decided by the court was whether the delay in prosecution by the plaintiff warranted the dismissal of the complaint based on laches. The holding of the court was that the branch of the defendant's motion seeking to dismiss the complaint on the ground of laches was denied, and the matter was remitted to the Civil Court for a determination of the remaining branches of the defendant's motion. The court reversed the order and found that the remaining branches of the motion were moot, and remitted the case back to the Civil Court for further determination.

The court considered a case in which Psychmetrics Medical, as the assignee of Vera Morozova, appealed an order from the Civil Court of the City of New York that granted the defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint on the grounds of laches, based on the delay in prosecuting the action to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits. The main issue was whether the delay in prosecuting the action constituted laches and justified the dismissal of the complaint. The court held that the order was reversed, the branch of the defendant's motion seeking to dismiss the complaint on the ground of laches was denied, and the matter was remitted to the Civil Court for a determination of the remaining branches of the defendant's motion. The decision was based on the reasoning in a previous case, Rockaway Med. & Diagnostic, P.C. v State Farm Mut. Ins. Co., and was decided by the three judges unanimously.

The relevant facts of the case were that Psychmetrics Medical, P.C. was seeking to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits from State Farm Mutual Insurance Co. State Farm moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground of laches, based on Psychmetrics's delay in prosecuting the action. The Civil Court granted this branch of State Farm's motion and found that the remaining branches of the motion were moot. The main issue that was decided was whether the complaint should be dismissed on the ground of laches. The holding of the court was that the order was reversed, the branch of State Farm's motion seeking to dismiss the complaint on the ground of laches was denied, and the matter was remitted to the Civil Court for a determination of the remaining branches of State Farm's motion.

The court considered the fact that plaintiff, Doctors United Inc., filed a lawsuit seeking overdue no-fault benefits from defendant, Hereford Insurance Company, for medical services rendered to Keith Davis. Defendant moved for summary judgment, claiming that plaintiff never billed defendant for the services. Plaintiff argued that the motion was untimely and that defendant had not paid or denied the bills. The court dismissed defendant's motion as untimely and declined to grant plaintiff summary judgment due to lack of evidence of billing and mailing of the bills. The main issues decided were whether the defendant's motion for summary judgment was untimely and whether there was sufficient evidence of billing and mailing of the bills. The holding was that defendant's motion for summary judgment was dismissed as untimely and plaintiff's request for summary judgment was also denied.

The court considered an appeal from an order of the Civil Court that granted the defendant's motion to vacate a default judgment and to compel the plaintiff to accept the defendant's answer. The main issue decided was whether the defendant provided a reasonable excuse for the default and a potentially meritorious defense to the action, as required by CPLR 5015(a)(1). The court held that the defendant's affidavit was insufficient to establish an excusable default and, as a result, reversed the order and denied the branches of the defendant's motion that sought to vacate the default judgment and to compel the plaintiff to accept the defendant's answer.