City Care Acupuncture, P.C. v. Allstate Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co.

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York
DecidedDecember 19, 2017
Docket2017 NYSlipOp 51839(U)
StatusPublished

This text of City Care Acupuncture, P.C. v. Allstate Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. (City Care Acupuncture, P.C. v. Allstate Prop. & Cas. 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
City Care Acupuncture, P.C. v. Allstate Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Opinion



City Care Acupuncture, P.C. and Jamaica Wellness Medical, P.C., as Assignees of Irina Sergheiciuc, Appellants,

against

Allstate Property and Casualty Insurance Company, Respondent.


Amos Weinberg, Esq., for appellants. Abrams, Cohen & Associates, P.C. (Frank Piccininni, Esq.), for respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Terrence C. O'Connor, J.), entered May 28, 2015. The order, insofar as appealed from as limited by the brief, granted defendant's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

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

In this action by providers to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, plaintiffs appeal from so much of an order of the Civil Court as granted defendant's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the action is premature because plaintiffs had failed to provide requested verification.

In support of plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and in opposition to defendant's cross motion, plaintiffs submitted affirmations from plaintiffs' counsel and annexed purported verification responses which expressly stated that plaintiffs were not providing responses to some of defendant's verification requests. As a result, contrary to plaintiffs' contention, the record demonstrates that defendant had not received all of the requested verification and, thus, that the action is premature (see Central Suffolk Hosp. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 24 AD3d 492 [2005]).

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

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


ENTER:
Paul Kenny
Chief Clerk
Decision Date: December 19, 2017

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

Related

Central Suffolk Hospital v. New York Central Mutual Fire Insurance
24 A.D.3d 492 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
City Care Acupuncture, P.C. v. Allstate Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/city-care-acupuncture-pc-v-allstate-prop-cas-ins-co-nyappterm-2017.