All Healthy Style Med., P.C. v. 21st Century Ins. Co.

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

All Healthy Style Med., P.C. v. 21st Century Ins. Co.

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedNovember 9, 2018

Docket2018 NYSlipOp 51592(U)

StatusPublished

This text of All Healthy Style Med., P.C. v. 21st Century Ins. Co. (All Healthy Style Med., P.C. v. 21st Century 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

All Healthy Style Med., P.C. v. 21st Century Ins. Co., (N.Y. Ct. App. 2018).

Pincite

Opinion

All Healthy Style Medical, P.C., Also Known as All Heathy Style, P.C., as Assignee of Mario Milord, Appellant,

against

21st Century Ins. Co., Respondent.

Kopelevich & Feldsherova, P.C. (Mikhail Kopelevich of counsel), for appellant. Law Offices of Buratti, Rothenberg & Burns (Elke E. Mirabella of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Katherine A. Levine, J.), entered December 7, 2015. The order granted defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

ORDERED that the order is reversed, with $30 costs, and defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is denied.

In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Civil Court which granted defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint upon the ground that plaintiff's assignor had procured the insurance policy in question by making a material misrepresentation as to his place of residence.

"A misrepresentation is material if the insurer would not have issued the policy had it known the facts misrepresented. To establish materiality as a matter of law, the insurer must present documentation concerning its underwriting practices, such as underwriting manuals, bulletins, or rules pertaining to similar risks, that show that it would not have issued the same policy if the correct information had been disclosed in the application" (Interboro Ins. Co. v Fatmir, 89 AD3d 993, 994 [2011] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]).

Upon a review of the record, we find that defendant failed to establish as a matter of law that it would not have issued the policy in question. Consequently, defendant did not [*2]demonstrate, prima facie, that the misrepresentation by plaintiff's assignor was material.

Accordingly, the order is reversed and defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is denied.

PESCE, P.J., ALIOTTA and ELLIOT, JJ., concur.

ENTER:
Paul Kenny
Chief Clerk
Decision Date: November 09, 2018

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