Lewis v. Goldberg

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Lewis v. Goldberg

54 A.D.2d 558, 387 N.Y.S.2d 11, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13875

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

DecidedSeptember 20, 1976

StatusPublished

This text of 54 A.D.2d 558 (Lewis v. Goldberg) 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

Lewis v. Goldberg, 54 A.D.2d 558, 387 N.Y.S.2d 11, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13875 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover moneys under an agreement, the parties cross-appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated February 23, 1976, which (1) denied defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action, (2) failed to grant defendant summary judgment and (3) denied plaintiffs’ cross motion for summary judgment. Order affirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements to plaintiffs. The complaint sets forth a legally sufficient cause of action for repayment by defendant, pursuant to the parties’ agreement, of charges paid him by plaintiffs for rehabilitative services furnished to their Medicare patients, which charges were subsequently disallowed by the fiscal intermediary upon final audit (thus, plaintiffs would not be reimbursed by the government). However, the existence of triable issues of fact, raised by the pleadings and affidavits at Special Term, precludes the grant of summary judgment to either party. Gulotta, P. J., Hopkins, Latham, Cohalan and Hawkins, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover moneys under an agreement, the parties cross-appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated February 23, 1976, which (1) denied defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action, (2) failed to grant defendant summary judgment and (3) denied plaintiffs’ cross motion for summary judgment. Order affirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements to plaintiffs. The complaint sets forth a legally sufficient cause of action for repayment by defendant, pursuant to the parties’ agreement, of charges paid him by plaintiffs for rehabilitative services furnished to their Medicare patients, which charges were subsequently disallowed by the fiscal intermediary upon final audit (thus, plaintiffs would not be reimbursed by the government). However, the existence of triable issues of fact, raised by the pleadings and affidavits at Special Term, precludes the grant of summary judgment to either party. Gulotta, P. J., Hopkins, Latham, Cohalan and Hawkins, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

54 A.D.2d 558, 387 N.Y.S.2d 11, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13875, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lewis-v-goldberg-nyappdiv-1976.