No-Fault Case Law

The main issue in the case was whether the plaintiff had failed to comply with discovery demands and whether the actions of the plaintiff's owner, Dr. John McGee, constituted a violation of state licensing requirements. The court considered the facts that the plaintiff had refused to answer certain questions during a deposition, that certain claims had already been dismissed based on noncompliance with discovery, and that Dr. McGee had already been deposed twice. The court held that the questions at issue were material and necessary to the defense of the action, and that the plaintiff's refusal to answer the questions may be presumed to be willful and contumacious. As a result, the court reversed the lower court's decision and granted the defendant's motion to strike the complaint and dismiss the action pursuant to CPLR 3126.

The relevant facts of the case included a provider seeking to recover first-party no-fault benefits for services rendered to an assignor. The defendant sought to amend its answer to assert the affirmative defense of collateral estoppel and for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, based on an arbitrator's decision in April 2014 that found the plaintiff was not eligible to recover benefits because it was not a licensed professional medical corporation in the State of New York. The main issues decided were whether the defendant should be granted leave to amend its answer and whether summary judgment should be granted based on the doctrine of collateral estoppel. The court ultimately affirmed the order, determining that the plaintiff had not demonstrated prejudice or surprise as a result of the proposed amendment to the answer and had presented no basis to disturb the branch of defendant's motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the complaint based on collateral estoppel. The holding of the case was that the defendant was granted leave to amend its answer and summary judgment was granted based on the doctrine of collateral estoppel, resulting in the affirmation of the order by the court.

The main issue in this case is whether the provider's action to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits was premature because the plaintiff had failed to provide requested verification. The court considered the fact that the defendant had appealed from an order of the Civil Court that denied the branch of the defendant's motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The court decided that the branch of the defendant's motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the complaint should be granted. The holding of this case is that the order, insofar as appealed from, is reversed, and the branch of defendant's motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted.

The main issues that were decided in this case were whether the defendant's motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the complaint should be granted, and whether the action was premature due to the plaintiff's alleged failure to provide requested verification. The court considered the fact that the action was brought by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits. The holding of the case was that the order, insofar as appealed from, was reversed and the branch of defendant's motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the complaint was granted. The court reversed the denial of the branch of defendant's motion and granted summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

The main issues in the case were whether the plaintiff had provided all requested verification in an action to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, and whether the action was premature due to the failure to provide requested verification. The court considered the fact that the defendant had timely mailed initial and follow-up verification requests, and that the plaintiff submitted an affidavit stating that all verification requested was provided. However, plaintiff failed to provide a signed informed consent form executed by the assignor, as requested by the defendant. The holding of the court was that the plaintiff failed to raise an issue of fact as to whether it had provided all of the requested verification, and therefore the branch of defendant's motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the complaint was granted.

The court considered an appeal from an order denying the defendant's motion to sever the first cause of action seeking to recover upon a claim for services rendered to Shavkat Djalilov from the remaining causes of action in an action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits. The main issue was whether the defendant's motion to sever the first cause of action should be granted pursuant to CPLR 603. The court held that the order denying the defendant's motion to sever was affirmed, with the reasoning to be provided in a separate case. The main holding of the case was that the defendant's motion to sever the first cause of action was properly denied.

The court considered the motion to sever the first cause of action seeking to recover upon a claim for services rendered to Victor Agnest from the remaining causes of action in an action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits. The main issue was whether the defendant's motion to sever the first cause of action should be granted. The court held that the order, insofar as appealed from, is affirmed and denied the defendant's motion to sever the first cause of action seeking to recover upon a claim for services rendered to Victor Agnest from the remaining causes of action. The decision was based on the reasons stated in a similar case, Himalayans Acupuncture, P.C., as Assignee of Davron Khuseynov, et al. v Global Liberty Ins. Co. of NY.

The court considered an appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County that denied the defendant's motion to sever the first cause of action seeking to recover upon a claim for services rendered to Davron Khuseynov from the remaining causes of action. The main issue decided was whether the causes of action arising from two different accidents and the multiple defenses interposed in the answer justified severance under CPLR 603. The court held that the decision to grant severance is an exercise of judicial discretion and should not be disturbed on appeal in the absence of a party showing prejudice to a substantial right. The court determined that the assignors being injured in separate accidents and the interposition of 48 defenses did not demonstrate that resolution of the claims for services rendered to each assignor would involve different questions of law and fact, affirming the denial of the defendant's motion.

The court considered the facts of a case where a provider was seeking first-party no-fault benefits and had moved for summary judgment, while the defendant cross-moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The main issues decided were the denial of the claim based on the defendant not receiving the underlying claim form, the payment being made in accordance with the workers' compensation fee schedule, and the provider failing to appear for examinations under oath. The holding of the court was that the summary judgment for the denial of the second and fifth causes of action was denied, as there was a triable issue of fact as to whether the claim form was timely mailed, and the follow-up scheduling letters for the examinations under oath were untimely. Additionally, the proof submitted in support of the motion failed to establish that the claim had not been timely denied or that the denial issued by the defendant was conclusory, vague, or without merit as a matter of law. As a result, the branches of the cross motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the second and fifth causes of action were denied.

The relevant facts of the case involved Fu-Qi Acupuncture, P.C. suing Travelers Insurance Company to recover assigned no-fault benefits. Travelers Insurance Company served an answer in January 2015, accompanied by a notice to take deposition, and in February 2015, Fu-Qi Acupuncture, P.C. served a notice of trial and certificate of readiness. The main issue decided was whether Fu-Qi Acupuncture, P.C. had completed discovery, as represented in the certificate of readiness. The holding of the court was that the notice of trial and certificate of readiness should have been vacated, as Fu-Qi Acupuncture, P.C. had not completed discovery, despite the representation made in the certificate of readiness, and therefore, Travelers Insurance Company's motion to vacate the notice of trial and certificate of readiness was granted.