Acupuncture Approach, P.C. v. New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co.

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Acupuncture Approach, P.C. v. New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co.

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedMarch 22, 2017

Docket2017 NYSlipOp 50340(U)

StatusPublished

This text of Acupuncture Approach, P.C. v. New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. (Acupuncture Approach, P.C. v. New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Acupuncture Approach, P.C. v. New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

Acupuncture Approach, P.C., a/a/o Jahmar Shaddi, Plaintiff-Appellant, -

against

New York Central Mutual Fire Insurance Company, Defendant-Respondent.

Plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County (James E. d'Auguste, J.), entered September 5, 2014, in favor of defendant dismissing the complaint. The appeal, as limited by the brief, brings up for review so much of an order (same court and Judge), entered March 17, 2014, compelling plaintiff to produce the treating provider for examination before trial.

Per Curiam.

Judgment (James E. d'Auguste, J.), entered September 5, 2014, affirmed, with $25 costs.

We find no abuse of discretion in the grant of defendant's motion to compel plaintiff to produce witnesses for deposition. Defendant preserved its excessive treatment and fee schedule defenses in the NF-10 denial of claim forms and demonstrated that the discovery sought was material and necessary to the defense of the action (see Megacure Acupuncture, P.C. v Lancer Ins. Co., 41 Misc 3d 139[A], 2013 NY Slip Op 51994[U] [App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud. Dists 2013]; Arco Med. NY, P.C. v Lancer Ins. Co., 37 Misc 3d 136[A], 2012 NY Slip Op 52178[U] [App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud. Dists 2012]). Unlike the situation in Ralph Med. Diagnostics, PC v Mercury Cas. Co. (43 Misc 3d 65 [2014]), the discovery sought herein is neither unreasonable nor duplicative of information already provided.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

I concur I concur I concur
Decision Date: March 22, 2017

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Acupuncture Approach, P.C., a/a/o Jahmar Shaddi, Plaintiff-Appellant, -

against

New York Central Mutual Fire Insurance Company, Defendant-Respondent.

Plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County (James E. d'Auguste, J.), entered September 5, 2014, in favor of defendant dismissing the complaint. The appeal, as limited by the brief, brings up for review so much of an order (same court and Judge), entered March 17, 2014, compelling plaintiff to produce the treating provider for examination before trial.

Per Curiam.

Judgment (James E. d'Auguste, J.), entered September 5, 2014, affirmed, with $25 costs.

We find no abuse of discretion in the grant of defendant's motion to compel plaintiff to produce witnesses for deposition. Defendant preserved its excessive treatment and fee schedule defenses in the NF-10 denial of claim forms and demonstrated that the discovery sought was material and necessary to the defense of the action (see Megacure Acupuncture, P.C. v Lancer Ins. Co., 41 Misc 3d 139[A], 2013 NY Slip Op 51994[U] [App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud. Dists 2013]; Arco Med. NY, P.C. v Lancer Ins. Co., 37 Misc 3d 136[A], 2012 NY Slip Op 52178[U] [App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud. Dists 2012]). Unlike the situation in Ralph Med. Diagnostics, PC v Mercury Cas. Co. (43 Misc 3d 65 [2014]), the discovery sought herein is neither unreasonable nor duplicative of information already provided.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

I concur I concur I concur
Decision Date: March 22, 2017

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Acupuncture Approach, P.C. v. New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/acupuncture-approach-pc-v-new-york-cent-mut-fire-ins-co-nyappterm-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack