No-Fault Case Law
Oleg’s Acupuncture, P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (2019 NY Slip Op 50761(U))
May 10, 2019
The court considered the issue of whether defendant was entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaint by a provider seeking to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, based on the plaintiff's failure to appear for duly scheduled examinations under oath (EUOs). The main issue was whether the defendant had established the timely and proper mailing of the EUO scheduling letters and denial of claim forms, as well as the plaintiff's failure to appear for the EUOs. The court held that, based on the reasons stated in another case, the defendant was entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Therefore, the defendant's motion for summary judgment was granted and the order denying the motion was reversed.
Oleg’s Acupuncture, P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (2019 NY Slip Op 50760(U))
May 10, 2019
The court considered the motion for summary judgment by the defendant, who argued that the plaintiff had failed to appear for duly scheduled examinations under oath. The court found that the defendant had established the timely and proper mailing of the EUO scheduling letters and denial of claim forms, as well as the plaintiff's failure to appear for the EUOs. The main issue decided by the court was whether the defendant was entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The court held that the defendant was entitled to summary judgment, as they had met the necessary requirements to establish their prima facie case, and that there was no triable issue of fact raised by the discrepancy in the EUO request letter. Therefore, the court reversed the lower court's decision and granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
Gentlecare Ambulatory Anesthesia Servs. v GEICO Ins. Co. (2019 NY Slip Op 50759(U))
May 10, 2019
The case involved an appeal from an order that granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint in an action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits. The main issue decided was whether the plaintiff had failed to appear for duly scheduled examinations under oath (EUOs), and if the defendant had provided sufficient proof to demonstrate this failure. The court held that the proof submitted by the defendant was sufficient and gave rise to a presumption that the EUO scheduling letters and denial of claim form had been timely mailed. Therefore, the court affirmed the order, stating that the plaintiff had not provided any basis to disturb the Civil Court's decision.
Active Care Med. Supply Corp. v American Tr. Ins. Co. (2019 NY Slip Op 50758(U))
May 10, 2019
The relevant facts the court considered were that Active Care Medical Supply Corp. was seeking to recover first-party no-fault benefits as an assignee of Thornton and Terry. The main issue decided was whether the provider, Active Care Medical Supply Corp., was entitled to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits. The holding of the court was that the order denying plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and granting defendant's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint was affirmed. The court referred to a similar case for the reasons behind their decision.
Active Care Med. Supply Corp. v American Tr. Ins. Co. (2019 NY Slip Op 50757(U))
May 10, 2019
The court considered the appeal from an order of the Civil Court denying the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and granting the defendant's cross motion for summary judgment in a case to recover first-party no-fault benefits. The main issue decided was whether the trial court erred in denying the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and granting the defendant's cross motion for summary judgment. The holding of the case was that the decision of the lower court was affirmed, with the costs of $25, based on the reasons stated in a similar case. The court concurred with the decision to deny the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and grant the defendant's cross motion for summary judgment.
Parisien v Allstate Ins. Co. (2019 NY Slip Op 50755(U))
May 10, 2019
The court considered the denial of the branches of plaintiff's motion seeking summary judgment on the first, second, fourth, and fifth causes of action, and the granting of the branches of defendant's cross motion seeking summary judgment dismissing those causes of action. The main issue decided was whether the provider was entitled to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits. The holding of the case was that the branches of defendant's cross motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the first, second, fourth, and fifth causes of action were denied, and the order was affirmed, without costs.
Gentlecare Ambulatory Anesthesia Servs. v GEICO Ins. Co. (2019 NY Slip Op 50753(U))
May 10, 2019
The case involved an appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County, which granted defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint brought by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits. The main issue decided was whether the defendant's motion for summary judgment should be granted. The court considered the arguments presented by both parties and ultimately affirmed the order granting the defendant's motion for summary judgment, dismissing the complaint. The holding of the case was that the order granting the defendant's motion for summary judgment was affirmed.
Active Care Med. Supply Corp. v American Tr. Ins. Co. (2019 NY Slip Op 50751(U))
May 10, 2019
The case involved an appeal from a denial of a motion for summary judgment by a provider seeking to recover first-party no-fault benefits, as well as a granting of the defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The court considered the reasons stated in a similar case, Active Care Med. Supply Corp., as Assignee of Wilson, Andrae v American Tr. Ins. Co., and affirmed the order. The main issue was whether the provider was entitled to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, and the holding of the court was that the denial of the motion for summary judgment and granting of the defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment was affirmed.
Blackman v Allstate Ins. Co. (2019 NY Slip Op 50750(U))
May 10, 2019
The relevant facts the court considered in this case were that Noel E. Blackman, M.D., as Assignee of Levent, Emek, appealed the denial of his motion for summary judgment and the grant of defendant Allstate Insurance Company's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The main issue decided was whether the provider should recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, and the holding was that the order was modified to deny defendant's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The court cited a similar case in its decision, Metro Psychological Servs., P.C., as Assignee of Adams Kenneth v Allstate Ins. Co., and ultimately upheld the denial of the defendant's cross motion for summary judgment.
Solution Bridge, Inc. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (2019 NY Slip Op 50749(U))
May 10, 2019
The relevant facts in this case involved an action brought by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits. The appellant, Solution Bridge, Inc., appealed an order of the Civil Court that granted the branch of the defendant's motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the second cause of action. The main issue decided was whether there was a triable issue of fact as to whether the verification had been provided by the appellant, as the affidavit submitted in opposition to defendant's motion was deemed sufficient to give rise to a presumption that the requested verification had been mailed to, and received by, defendant. The holding of the court was that the order, insofar as appealed from, was reversed and the branch of the defendant's motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the second cause of action was denied.