Dynasty Med. Care, P.C. v. 21st Century Advantage Ins. Co.

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Dynasty Med. Care, P.C. v. 21st Century Advantage Ins. Co.

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedApril 27, 2017

Docket2017 NYSlipOp 50597(U)

StatusPublished

This text of Dynasty Med. Care, P.C. v. 21st Century Advantage Ins. Co. (Dynasty Med. Care, P.C. v. 21st Century Advantage 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

Dynasty Med. Care, P.C. v. 21st Century Advantage Ins. Co., (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

Dynasty Medical Care, P.C., as Assignee of Leonel Raoul, Appellant,

against

21st Century Advantage Insurance Company, Respondent.

Gabriel & Shapiro, LLC (Steven F. Palumbo, Esq.), for appellant. Law Office of Bryan M. Rothenberg (Deepak D. Sohi, Esq.), for respondent.

Appeal from an amended order of the District Court of Suffolk County, Third District (C. Stephen Hackeling, J.), dated January 21, 2016. The amended order granted defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

ORDERED that, on the court's own motion, the notice of appeal from an order dated December 23, 2015 is deemed a premature notice of appeal from the amended order dated January 21, 2016 (see CPLR 5520 [c]); and it is further,

ORDERED that the amended order is affirmed, without costs.

In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, arguing that it had paid plaintiff for the services at issue in accordance with the workers' compensation fee schedule. The District Court granted defendant's motion. Contrary to plaintiff's contention, defendant sufficiently demonstrated, prima facie, that it had properly applied the fee schedule and plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact with respect thereto (see Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557 [1980]).

Accordingly, the amended order is affirmed.

Marano, P.J., Garguilo and Brands, JJ., concur.

Decision Date: April 27, 2017

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

Dynasty Medical Care, P.C., as Assignee of Leonel Raoul, Appellant,

against

21st Century Advantage Insurance Company, Respondent.

Gabriel & Shapiro, LLC (Steven F. Palumbo, Esq.), for appellant. Law Office of Bryan M. Rothenberg (Deepak D. Sohi, Esq.), for respondent.

Appeal from an amended order of the District Court of Suffolk County, Third District (C. Stephen Hackeling, J.), dated January 21, 2016. The amended order granted defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

ORDERED that, on the court's own motion, the notice of appeal from an order dated December 23, 2015 is deemed a premature notice of appeal from the amended order dated January 21, 2016 (see CPLR 5520 [c]); and it is further,

ORDERED that the amended order is affirmed, without costs.

In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, arguing that it had paid plaintiff for the services at issue in accordance with the workers' compensation fee schedule. The District Court granted defendant's motion. Contrary to plaintiff's contention, defendant sufficiently demonstrated, prima facie, that it had properly applied the fee schedule and plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact with respect thereto (see Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557 [1980]).

Accordingly, the amended order is affirmed.

Marano, P.J., Garguilo and Brands, JJ., concur.

Decision Date: April 27, 2017

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Dynasty Med. Care, P.C. v. 21st Century Advantage Ins. Co., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dynasty-med-care-pc-v-21st-century-advantage-ins-co-nyappterm-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack