Hospital for Joint Diseases v. Travelers Property Casualty Insurance

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hospital for Joint Diseases v. Travelers Property Casualty Insurance

34 A.D.3d 532, 827 N.Y.S.2d 72

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

DecidedNovember 14, 2006

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 34 A.D.3d 532 (Hospital for Joint Diseases v. Travelers Property Casualty Insurance) 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

Hospital for Joint Diseases v. Travelers Property Casualty Insurance, 34 A.D.3d 532, 827 N.Y.S.2d 72 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover no-fault medical payments, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Joseph, J.), dated October 31, 2005, which granted the motion of the plaintiff New York and Presbyterian Hospital for summary judgment on the third cause of action and denied the defendants’ cross motion for summary judgment dismissing that cause of action.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

In support of its motion for summary judgment on the third cause of action, the plaintiff New York and Presbyterian Hospital, as assignee of William Browne, made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting a hospital bill with a signed certified mail return receipt and by submitting the affidavit of its third-party biller, who attested that he billed the defendants for the subject medical treatment and that the defendants failed to pay the claim or issue a denial of claim form (see New York & Presbyt. Hosp. v Allstate Ins. Co., 30 AD3d 492, 493 [2006]). In opposition to the motion the defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact, and in support of their cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the third cause of action the defendants failed to demonstrate their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. The defendants’ failure to timely object to the adequacy of the claim forms or seek verification of the assignment constituted a waiver of any defenses based thereon (see Nyack Hosp. v Encompass Ins. Co., 23 AD3d 535 [2005], lv denied 7 NY3d 741 [2006]; Hospital for Joint Diseases v Allstate Ins. Co., 21 AD3d 348 [2005]; Nyack Hosp. v Metropolitan Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 16 AD3d 564 [2005]; New York Hosp. Med. Ctr. of Queens v AIU Ins. Co., 8 AD3d 456 [2004]).

Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the motion [533]*533and denied the cross motion. Schmidt, J.E, Adams, Skelos and Covello, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover no-fault medical payments, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Joseph, J.), dated October 31, 2005, which granted the motion of the plaintiff New York and Presbyterian Hospital for summary judgment on the third cause of action and denied the defendants’ cross motion for summary judgment dismissing that cause of action.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

In support of its motion for summary judgment on the third cause of action, the plaintiff New York and Presbyterian Hospital, as assignee of William Browne, made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting a hospital bill with a signed certified mail return receipt and by submitting the affidavit of its third-party biller, who attested that he billed the defendants for the subject medical treatment and that the defendants failed to pay the claim or issue a denial of claim form (see New York & Presbyt. Hosp. v Allstate Ins. Co., 30 AD3d 492, 493 [2006]). In opposition to the motion the defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact, and in support of their cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the third cause of action the defendants failed to demonstrate their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. The defendants’ failure to timely object to the adequacy of the claim forms or seek verification of the assignment constituted a waiver of any defenses based thereon (see Nyack Hosp. v Encompass Ins. Co., 23 AD3d 535 [2005], lv denied 7 NY3d 741 [2006]; Hospital for Joint Diseases v Allstate Ins. Co., 21 AD3d 348 [2005]; Nyack Hosp. v Metropolitan Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 16 AD3d 564 [2005]; New York Hosp. Med. Ctr. of Queens v AIU Ins. Co., 8 AD3d 456 [2004]).

Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the motion [533]*533and denied the cross motion. Schmidt, J.E, Adams, Skelos and Covello, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

34 A.D.3d 532, 827 N.Y.S.2d 72, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hospital-for-joint-diseases-v-travelers-property-casualty-insurance-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack