BAB Nuclear Radiology, P.C. v. Mercury Cas. Co.

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York
DecidedMarch 11, 2016
Docket2016 NYSlipOp 50318(U)
StatusPublished

This text of BAB Nuclear Radiology, P.C. v. Mercury Cas. Co. (BAB Nuclear Radiology, P.C. v. Mercury Cas. 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
BAB Nuclear Radiology, P.C. v. Mercury Cas. Co., (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Opinion



BAB Nuclear Radiology, P.C. as Assignee of Madeline Herth, Respondent,

against

Mercury Casualty Company, Appellant.


Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Ulysses Bernard Leverett, J.), entered August 8, 2013. The order, insofar as appealed from, denied defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

ORDERED that the order, insofar as appealed from, is affirmed, with $25 costs.

In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that it had timely denied the claim at issue based on plaintiff's failure to submit it to defendant within 45 days of the date the services had been rendered. Plaintiff cross-moved for summary judgment. Defendant appeals from so much of an order of the Civil Court as denied defendant's motion for summary judgment, finding that the affidavit of plaintiff's billing supervisor was sufficient to demonstrate the existence of a triable issue of fact with respect to whether the claim had been timely submitted to defendant.

Contrary to defendant's sole contention on appeal, the affidavit of plaintiff's billing supervisor was sufficient to demonstrate the existence of a triable issue of fact with respect to whether the claim had been timely submitted to defendant. Consequently, defendant did not prove, as a matter of law, that plaintiff had failed to comply with the regulation requiring submission of claims within 45 days of the services rendered (see 11 NYCRR 65-1.1).

Accordingly, the order, insofar as appealed from, is affirmed.

Pesce, P.J., Aliotta and Elliot, JJ., concur.


Decision Date: March 11, 2016

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
BAB Nuclear Radiology, P.C. v. Mercury Cas. Co., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bab-nuclear-radiology-pc-v-mercury-cas-co-nyappterm-2016.