Art of Healing Medicine, P.C. v. Travelers Home & Marine Insurance

55 A.D.3d 644, 864 N.Y.S.2d 792
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedOctober 14, 2008
StatusPublished
Cited by16 cases

This text of 55 A.D.3d 644 (Art of Healing Medicine, P.C. v. Travelers Home & Marine Insurance) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Art of Healing Medicine, P.C. v. Travelers Home & Marine Insurance, 55 A.D.3d 644, 864 N.Y.S.2d 792 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Opinion

an action to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits under an insurance contract, the plaintiffs appeal, by permission, from an order of the Appellate Term of the Supreme Court for the Second and Eleventh Judicial Districts, dated June 4, 2007, which affirmed an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Nadelson, J.), entered April 5, 2005, denying their motion for partial summary judgment.

Ordered that the order dated June 4, 2007 is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiffs failed to establish their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. The plaintiffs’ medical service providers failed to demonstrate the admissibility of their billing records under the business records exception to the hearsay rule (see CPLR 4518 [a]; Matter of Leon RR., 48 NY2d 117, 122-123 [1979]; Hochhauser v Electric Ins. Co., 46 AD3d 174, 179-180 [2007]; Kane v Triborough Bridge & Tunnel Auth., 8 AD3d 239, 241 [2004]; Rosenthal v Allstate Ins. Co., 248 AD2d 455, 456-457 [1998]). Thus, the plaintiffs’ motion was properly denied, regardless of the sufficiency of the opposing papers (see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851 [1985]).

[645]*645To the extent that the plaintiffs raise any issue with respect to the defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, that issue is not properly before us, as the cross motion remains pending and undecided (see Katz v Katz, 68 AD2d 536, 542-543 [1979]). Prudenti, P.J., Santucci, McCarthy and Chambers, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Rose M. Geister v. Discover Bank
Court of Appeals of Texas, 2015
Alleviation Medical Services, PC v. Hertz Co.
49 Misc. 3d 819 (Civil Court of the City of New York, 2015)
Viviane Etienne Medical Care v. Country-Wide Ins.
35 N.E.3d 451 (New York Court of Appeals, 2015)
Viviane Etienne Medical Care, P.C. v. Country-Wide Ins.
114 A.D.3d 33 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
NYU Hospital for Joint Diseases v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance
38 Misc. 3d 41 (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
Victory Medical Diagnostics, P.C. v. Nationwide Property & Casualty Insurance
36 Misc. 3d 568 (Nassau County District Court, 2012)
Total Equipment, LLC v. Praetorian Insurance
34 Misc. 3d 295 (Nassau County District Court, 2011)
JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. RADS Group, Inc.
88 A.D.3d 766 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
Viviane Etienne Medical Care, P.C. v. Country-Wide Insurance
31 Misc. 3d 21 (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
Carothers v. GEICO Indemnity Co.
79 A.D.3d 864 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Bath Medical Supply, Inc. v. Allstate Indemnity Co.
27 Misc. 3d 92 (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
55 A.D.3d 644, 864 N.Y.S.2d 792, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/art-of-healing-medicine-pc-v-travelers-home-marine-insurance-nyappdiv-2008.