AR Med. Rehabilitation, P.C. v. MVAIC

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

AR Med. Rehabilitation, P.C. v. MVAIC

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedOctober 18, 2019

Docket2019 NYSlipOp 51683(U)

StatusPublished

This text of AR Med. Rehabilitation, P.C. v. MVAIC (AR Med. Rehabilitation, P.C. v. MVAIC) 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

AR Med. Rehabilitation, P.C. v. MVAIC, (N.Y. Ct. App. 2019).

Pincite

Opinion

AR Medical Rehabilitation, P.C., as Assignee of Mitchell Lewen, Respondent,

against

MVAIC, Appellant.

Marshall & Marshall, PLLC (Barbara Carabell of counsel), for appellant. Gary Tsirelman, P.C. (Stefan Belinfanti of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal from a decision of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Steven Z. Mostofsky, J.), dated November 19, 2014, and from a judgment of that court entered October 8, 2015. The judgment, entered pursuant to the decision, after a nonjury trial, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $8,557.97.

ORDERED that so much of the appeal as is from the decision is dismissed, as no appeal lies therefrom (see CCA 1702); and it is further,

ORDERED that the judgment is reversed, with $30 costs, and the matter is remitted to the Civil Court for a new trial.

At a nonjury trial in this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, the sole issue was whether plaintiff's assignor was injured during the underlying motor vehicle accident. Following the trial, the Civil Court awarded judgment to plaintiff. Upon a review of the record, we find that the court erroneously excluded the police report regarding the accident at issue from evidence. As the report was material to the sole issue before the court, we find that a new trial is required.

Accordingly, the judgment is reversed and the matter is remitted to the Civil Court for a new trial.

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

ENTER:
Paul Kenny
Chief Clerk
Decision Date: October 18, 2019

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

AR Medical Rehabilitation, P.C., as Assignee of Mitchell Lewen, Respondent,

against

MVAIC, Appellant.

Marshall & Marshall, PLLC (Barbara Carabell of counsel), for appellant. Gary Tsirelman, P.C. (Stefan Belinfanti of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal from a decision of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Steven Z. Mostofsky, J.), dated November 19, 2014, and from a judgment of that court entered October 8, 2015. The judgment, entered pursuant to the decision, after a nonjury trial, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $8,557.97.

ORDERED that so much of the appeal as is from the decision is dismissed, as no appeal lies therefrom (see CCA 1702); and it is further,

ORDERED that the judgment is reversed, with $30 costs, and the matter is remitted to the Civil Court for a new trial.

At a nonjury trial in this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, the sole issue was whether plaintiff's assignor was injured during the underlying motor vehicle accident. Following the trial, the Civil Court awarded judgment to plaintiff. Upon a review of the record, we find that the court erroneously excluded the police report regarding the accident at issue from evidence. As the report was material to the sole issue before the court, we find that a new trial is required.

Accordingly, the judgment is reversed and the matter is remitted to the Civil Court for a new trial.

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

ENTER:
Paul Kenny
Chief Clerk
Decision Date: October 18, 2019

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

AR Med. Rehabilitation, P.C. v. MVAIC, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ar-med-rehabilitation-pc-v-mvaic-nyappterm-2019.