No-Fault Case Law
Pierre J. Renelique, M.D., P.C. v American Ind. Ins. Co. (2019 NY Slip Op 51743(U))
October 25, 2019
The relevant facts considered by the court were that Pierre J. Renelique, M.D., P.C. was seeking to recover first-party no-fault benefits as an assignee of Joseph Gehu, and that the defendant, American Independent Ins. Co., had moved to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(8). The main issue decided by the court was whether the complaint should be dismissed, and the holding of the case was that the court reversed the order of the Civil Court and granted the defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint. The court referenced a similar case, Pierre J. Renelique, M.D., P.C., as Assignee of Vernizier, Jean Willy v American Ind. Ins. Co., to support its decision. The decision was made by the Appellate Term, Second Department in the 2nd, 11th, and 13th Judicial Districts.
Pierre J. Renelique, M.D., P.C. v American Ind. Ins. Co. (2019 NY Slip Op 51742(U))
October 25, 2019
The relevant facts considered by the court were that Pierre J. Renelique, M.D., P.C. was seeking to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits from American Independent Ins. Co. The main issue decided was whether or not the complaint filed by the provider should be dismissed pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (8). The decision of the court was that the order denying defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint was reversed and the defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint was granted. The court's holding was consistent with a previous related case, Pierre J. Renelique, M.D., P.C., as Assignee of Vernizier, Jean Willy v American Ind. Ins. Co., where the same conclusion was reached.
Pierre J. Renelique, M.D., P.C. v American Ind. Ins. Co. (2019 NY Slip Op 51741(U))
October 25, 2019
The relevant facts considered by the court were that the plaintiff, Pierre J. Renelique, M.D., P.C., was seeking to recover first-party no-fault benefits from the defendant, American Independent Insurance Co., as the assignee of Borgella, Emmanuel. The main issue decided by the court was whether the lower court erred in denying the defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(8). The holding of the court was that the order denying the motion to dismiss was reversed, with costs of $30, and the defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint was granted. The court referenced a similar case, Pierre J. Renelique, M.D., P.C., as Assignee of Vernizier, Jean Willy v American Ind. Ins. Co., in their decision.
Pierre J. Renelique, M.D., P.C. v American Ind. Ins. Co. (2019 NY Slip Op 51740(U))
October 25, 2019
The case involved a dispute between Pierre J. Renelique, M.D., P.C., as the assignee of Ligene, Joanel, and American Independent Ins. Co. regarding the recovery of assigned first-party no-fault benefits. American Independent Ins. Co. appealed from an order of the Civil Court, which denied their motion to dismiss the complaint. The appellate court reversed the order and granted the defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint. The main issue decided was whether the complaint should be dismissed pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (8) and the court held that the motion to dismiss the complaint should be granted.
Pierre J. Renelique, M.D., P.C. v American Ind. Ins. Co. (2019 NY Slip Op 51739(U))
October 25, 2019
The court considered an appeal from an order denying the defendant's motion to dismiss a complaint in a no-fault benefits action. The main issue was whether the complaint should be dismissed pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (8). The court held that the order denying the defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint was reversed, and the defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint was granted. The decision was based on the reasoning stated in a previous case, Pierre J. Renelique, M.D., P.C., as Assignee of Vernizier, Jean Willy v American Ind. Ins. Co., which was decided along with the current case. The decision was concurred by the presiding judges.
Pierre J. Renelique, M.D., P.C. v American Ind. Ins. Co. (2019 NY Slip Op 51738(U))
October 25, 2019
The court considered an appeal from an order of the Civil Court, which denied the defendant's motion to dismiss a complaint brought by Pierre J. Renelique, M.D., P.C., as Assignee of Acevedo, Constantino, seeking to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits from American Independent Ins. Co. The main issue decided was whether the complaint should be dismissed pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (8). The court ultimately held that the order denying the defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint was reversed and that the defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint was granted. Therefore, the defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint was ultimately successful.
Pierre J. Renelique, M.D., P.C. v American Ind. Ins. Co. (2019 NY Slip Op 51737(U))
October 25, 2019
The court considered an appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County, which denied the defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint brought by Pierre J. Renelique, M.D., P.C., as Assignee of Joseph, Marie Willene, to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits from American Independent Ins. Co. The main issue decided was whether the complaint should be dismissed pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (8). The holding of the court was that, for the reasons stated in another case involving the same parties, the order denying the motion to dismiss the complaint was reversed, and defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint was granted. Therefore, the order of the Civil Court was reversed and the defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint was granted.
Pierre J. Renelique, M.D., P.C. v American Ind. Ins. Co. (2019 NY Slip Op 51736(U))
October 25, 2019
The relevant facts the court considered were whether or not the defendant, a Pennsylvania company, had transacted business in New York and whether the New York courts had jurisdiction over the defendant. The main issue decided was whether the court had jurisdiction over the defendant in a case pertaining to first-party no-fault benefits. The holding of the case was that the court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint, ruling that the plaintiff did not make a sufficient showing that jurisdiction could exist, and therefore their assertion of a jurisdictional predicate was not deemed frivolous. The court reversed the denial of the defendant's motion and granted the motion to dismiss the complaint.
Parisien v American Ind. Ins. Co. (2019 NY Slip Op 51735(U))
October 25, 2019
The relevant facts the court considered were that the plaintiff mailed the summons and complaint to the defendant by certified mail, return receipt requested, but failed to properly serve the defendant with a copy of the summons and complaint by first-class mail, as required by CPLR 312-a. The main issue decided by the court was whether the plaintiff's failure to properly serve the defendant with the summons and complaint deprived the court of personal jurisdiction over the defendant. The court held that in the absence of proper service, no personal jurisdiction was acquired over the defendant, and therefore the branch of the defendant's motion seeking to dismiss the complaint was granted. The court also noted that even if the plaintiff had properly served the defendant, the complaint would have been dismissed pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (8) for other reasons.
Quality Comprehensive Med. Care, P.C. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. (2019 NY Slip Op 51734(U))
October 25, 2019
The case involves an appeal from an order of the Civil Court which granted defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and denied plaintiff's cross motion for summary judgment. The defendant denied the plaintiff's claims on the ground that the services at issue were not medically necessary and that the fees charged exceeded the amount permitted by the workers' compensation fee schedule. The court found that the defendant failed to establish that the services provided lacked medical necessity, but it was established that the amount sought exceeded the amount permitted by the workers' compensation fee schedule. The holding of the court was that defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted only to the extent of dismissing so much of the complaint as sought to recover in excess of $425.88 upon each of the claims at issue.