GC Chiropractic, P.C. v. Integon Natl. Ins. Co.

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

GC Chiropractic, P.C. v. Integon Natl. Ins. Co.

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedNovember 1, 2019

Docket2019 NYSlipOp 51800(U)

StatusPublished

This text of GC Chiropractic, P.C. v. Integon Natl. Ins. Co. (GC Chiropractic, P.C. v. Integon Natl. 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

GC Chiropractic, P.C. v. Integon Natl. Ins. Co., (N.Y. Ct. App. 2019).

Pincite

Opinion

GC Chiropractic, P.C., as Assignee of Edith Carver, Appellant,

against

Integon National Ins. Co., Respondent.

Gary Tsirelman, P.C. (Devon Riley Christian of counsel), for appellant. Law Offices of Moira Doherty, P.C., for respondent (no brief filed).

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Rosemarie Montalbano, J.), entered May 7, 2018. The order granted defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and denied plaintiff's cross motion to compel discovery.

ORDERED that the order is reversed, with $30 costs, defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is denied and plaintiff's cross motion to compel discovery is granted.

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 of lack of medical necessity. Plaintiff opposed the motion on the ground that defendant had failed to respond to discovery demands and that defendant's responses were necessary to oppose defendant's motion (see CPLR 3212 [f]). Plaintiff also cross-moved to compel defendant to provide the requested discovery (see CPLR 3124). The Civil Court granted defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and denied plaintiff's cross motion seeking to compel discovery.

In opposition to defendant's motion, and in support of its cross motion to compel [*2]discovery, plaintiff demonstrated that it had requested from defendant, but had not received in time to oppose defendant's motion (see CPLR 3212 [f]), the medical records relied upon by defendant's peer reviewer. In light of the foregoing, defendant is not entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaint (see IDF Diagnostic Med., P.C. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 48 Misc 3d 138[A], 2015 NY Slip Op 51213[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2015]; see also Alrof, Inc. v Progressive Ins. Co., 34 Misc 3d 29 [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2011]).

Accordingly, the order is reversed, defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is denied and plaintiff's cross motion to compel discovery is granted.

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

GC Chiropractic, P.C., as Assignee of Edith Carver, Appellant,

against

Integon National Ins. Co., Respondent.

Gary Tsirelman, P.C. (Devon Riley Christian of counsel), for appellant. Law Offices of Moira Doherty, P.C., for respondent (no brief filed).

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Rosemarie Montalbano, J.), entered May 7, 2018. The order granted defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and denied plaintiff's cross motion to compel discovery.

ORDERED that the order is reversed, with $30 costs, defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is denied and plaintiff's cross motion to compel discovery is granted.

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 of lack of medical necessity. Plaintiff opposed the motion on the ground that defendant had failed to respond to discovery demands and that defendant's responses were necessary to oppose defendant's motion (see CPLR 3212 [f]). Plaintiff also cross-moved to compel defendant to provide the requested discovery (see CPLR 3124). The Civil Court granted defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and denied plaintiff's cross motion seeking to compel discovery.

In opposition to defendant's motion, and in support of its cross motion to compel [*2]discovery, plaintiff demonstrated that it had requested from defendant, but had not received in time to oppose defendant's motion (see CPLR 3212 [f]), the medical records relied upon by defendant's peer reviewer. In light of the foregoing, defendant is not entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaint (see IDF Diagnostic Med., P.C. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 48 Misc 3d 138[A], 2015 NY Slip Op 51213[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2015]; see also Alrof, Inc. v Progressive Ins. Co., 34 Misc 3d 29 [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2011]).

Accordingly, the order is reversed, defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is denied and plaintiff's cross motion to compel discovery is granted.

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)

GC Chiropractic, P.C. v. Integon Natl. Ins. Co., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gc-chiropractic-pc-v-integon-natl-ins-co-nyappterm-2019.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack