For-Med Medical Group, P.C. v. Comprehensive Medical Care, P.C.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

For-Med Medical Group, P.C. v. Comprehensive Medical Care, P.C.

305 A.D.2d 633, 759 N.Y.S.2d 887, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5930

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedMay 27, 2003

StatusPublished

This text of 305 A.D.2d 633 (For-Med Medical Group, P.C. v. Comprehensive Medical Care, P.C.) 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

For-Med Medical Group, P.C. v. Comprehensive Medical Care, P.C., 305 A.D.2d 633, 759 N.Y.S.2d 887, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5930 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action, inter alia, for an accounting and to collect sums due for various medical services, the defendants Comprehensive Medical Care, P.C., Global Medical Care, P.C., United Medical Care, P.C., and Complete Medical Care, P.C., appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Schmidt, J.), dated August 22, 2002, as denied their cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The appellants failed to establish that they were entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the ground that the plaintiff derived its right of action from a document which violates the antichamperty law (see Judiciary Law § 489; Bluebird Partners v First Fid. Bank, 94 NY2d 726 [2000]; Fairchild Hiller Corp. v McDonnell Douglas Corp., 28 NY2d 325, 330 [1971]). They also failed to establish as a matter of law that the plaintiff lacks standing to maintain this action (see Society of Plastics Indus. v County of Suffolk, 77 NY2d 761 [1991]). Thus, the appellants’ cross motion for summary judgment was properly denied. Altman, J.P., McGinity, Luciano and H. Miller, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action, inter alia, for an accounting and to collect sums due for various medical services, the defendants Comprehensive Medical Care, P.C., Global Medical Care, P.C., United Medical Care, P.C., and Complete Medical Care, P.C., appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Schmidt, J.), dated August 22, 2002, as denied their cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The appellants failed to establish that they were entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the ground that the plaintiff derived its right of action from a document which violates the antichamperty law (see Judiciary Law § 489; Bluebird Partners v First Fid. Bank, 94 NY2d 726 [2000]; Fairchild Hiller Corp. v McDonnell Douglas Corp., 28 NY2d 325, 330 [1971]). They also failed to establish as a matter of law that the plaintiff lacks standing to maintain this action (see Society of Plastics Indus. v County of Suffolk, 77 NY2d 761 [1991]). Thus, the appellants’ cross motion for summary judgment was properly denied. Altman, J.P., McGinity, Luciano and H. Miller, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

305 A.D.2d 633, 759 N.Y.S.2d 887, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5930, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/for-med-medical-group-pc-v-comprehensive-medical-care-pc-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack