Easy Care Acupuncture, P.C. v. Ameriprise Ins. Co.

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Easy Care Acupuncture, P.C. v. Ameriprise Ins. Co.

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedNovember 1, 2019

Docket2019 NYSlipOp 51794(U)

StatusPublished

This text of Easy Care Acupuncture, P.C. v. Ameriprise Ins. Co. (Easy Care Acupuncture, P.C. v. Ameriprise 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

Easy Care Acupuncture, P.C. v. Ameriprise Ins. Co., (N.Y. Ct. App. 2019).

Pincite

Opinion

Easy Care Acupuncture, P.C., as Assignee of Jackie Maulange, Appellant,

against

Ameriprise Ins. Co., Respondent.

Gary Tsirelman, P.C. (Douglas Mace of counsel), for appellant. Bruno, Gerbino & Soriano, LLP (Nathan M. Shapiro of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Richard J. Montelione, J.), entered November 2, 2017. The order, insofar as appealed from, granted the branches of defendant's motion seeking summary judgment dismissing so much of the complaint as sought to recover on claims for $2,079.15, $1,035.12, $980.12, $862.60, $542.56, and $255.04.

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, plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Civil Court as granted the branches of defendant's motion seeking summary judgment dismissing so much of the complaint as sought to recover on claims for $2,079.15, $1,035.12, $980.12, $862.60, $542.56, and $255.04 on the ground that plaintiff's assignor had failed to appear for duly scheduled examinations under oath (EUOs).

Contrary to plaintiff's contentions on appeal, defendant established that the EUO scheduling letters had been timely mailed (see St. Vincent's Hosp. of Richmond v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 50 AD3d 1123 [2008]; see also ARCO Med. NY, P.C. v Lancer Ins. Co., 34 Misc 3d 134[A], 2011 NY Slip Op 52382[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists [*2]2011]) and that plaintiff had failed to appear for the duly scheduled EUOs (see Stephen Fogel Psychological, P.C. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 35 AD3d 720 [2006]).

Plaintiff's remaining contentions lack merit.

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

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

ENTER:
Paul Kenny
Chief Clerk
Decision Date: November 01, 2019

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

Easy Care Acupuncture, P.C., as Assignee of Jackie Maulange, Appellant,

against

Ameriprise Ins. Co., Respondent.

Gary Tsirelman, P.C. (Douglas Mace of counsel), for appellant. Bruno, Gerbino & Soriano, LLP (Nathan M. Shapiro of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Richard J. Montelione, J.), entered November 2, 2017. The order, insofar as appealed from, granted the branches of defendant's motion seeking summary judgment dismissing so much of the complaint as sought to recover on claims for $2,079.15, $1,035.12, $980.12, $862.60, $542.56, and $255.04.

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, plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Civil Court as granted the branches of defendant's motion seeking summary judgment dismissing so much of the complaint as sought to recover on claims for $2,079.15, $1,035.12, $980.12, $862.60, $542.56, and $255.04 on the ground that plaintiff's assignor had failed to appear for duly scheduled examinations under oath (EUOs).

Contrary to plaintiff's contentions on appeal, defendant established that the EUO scheduling letters had been timely mailed (see St. Vincent's Hosp. of Richmond v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 50 AD3d 1123 [2008]; see also ARCO Med. NY, P.C. v Lancer Ins. Co., 34 Misc 3d 134[A], 2011 NY Slip Op 52382[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists [*2]2011]) and that plaintiff had failed to appear for the duly scheduled EUOs (see Stephen Fogel Psychological, P.C. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 35 AD3d 720 [2006]).

Plaintiff's remaining contentions lack merit.

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

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

ENTER:
Paul Kenny
Chief Clerk
Decision Date: November 01, 2019

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Easy Care Acupuncture, P.C. v. Ameriprise Ins. Co., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/easy-care-acupuncture-pc-v-ameriprise-ins-co-nyappterm-2019.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack