Lynbrook Pt & Ot, PLLC v. Foremost Ins. Co.

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Lynbrook Pt & Ot, PLLC v. Foremost Ins. Co.

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedSeptember 8, 2017

Docket2017 NYSlipOp 51146(U)

StatusPublished

This text of Lynbrook Pt & Ot, PLLC v. Foremost Ins. Co. (Lynbrook Pt & Ot, PLLC v. Foremost 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

Lynbrook Pt & Ot, PLLC v. Foremost Ins. Co., (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

Lynbrook PT & OT, PLLC as Assignee of Kelvin Sumper, Appellant,

against

Foremost Ins. Co., Respondent.

Korsunskiy Legal Group, P.C. (Michael Hoenig, Esq.), for appellant. Law Offices of Bryan M. Rothenberg (Argyria A.N. Kehagias, Esq.), for respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Pamela L. Fisher, J.), entered June 9, 2014. The order, insofar as appealed from and as limited by the brief, granted the branches of defendant's motion seeking summary judgment dismissing so much of the complaint as sought to recover upon a claim for $174.02 for dates of service February 27, 2012 through March 19, 2012, and a claim for $116.19 for dates of service March 26, 2012 through April 18, 2012, and denied the branches of plaintiff's cross motion seeking summary judgment on so much of the complaint as sought to recover on those claims.

ORDERED that the order, insofar as appealed from, is modified by providing that the branches of defendant's motion seeking summary judgment dismissing so much of the complaint as sought to recover upon a claim for $174.02 for dates of service February 27, 2012 through March 19, 2012 and a claim for $116.19 for dates of service March 26, 2012 through April 18, 2012 are denied; as so modified, the order, insofar as appealed from, is affirmed, without costs.

In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, plaintiff appeals, as limited by its brief, 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 [*2]as sought to recover upon a claim for $174.02 for dates of service February 27, 2012 through March 19, 2012 and a claim for $116.19 for dates of service March 26, 2012 through April 18, 2012, and denied the branches of plaintiff's cross motion seeking summary judgment on so much of the complaint as sought to recover on those claims.

On appeal, plaintiff correctly argues that there is a triable issue of fact with respect to defendant's application of Ground Rule 11 of the workers' compensation fee schedule to the claims at issue.

Accordingly, the order, insofar as appealed from, is modified by providing that the branches of defendant's motion seeking summary judgment dismissing so much of the complaint as sought to recover upon a claim for $174.02 for dates of service February 27, 2012 through March 19, 2012 and a claim for $116.19 for dates of service March 26, 2012 through April 18, 2012, are denied.

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

Paul Kenny
Chief Clerk
Decision Date: September 08, 2017

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

Lynbrook PT & OT, PLLC as Assignee of Kelvin Sumper, Appellant,

against

Foremost Ins. Co., Respondent.

Korsunskiy Legal Group, P.C. (Michael Hoenig, Esq.), for appellant. Law Offices of Bryan M. Rothenberg (Argyria A.N. Kehagias, Esq.), for respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Pamela L. Fisher, J.), entered June 9, 2014. The order, insofar as appealed from and as limited by the brief, granted the branches of defendant's motion seeking summary judgment dismissing so much of the complaint as sought to recover upon a claim for $174.02 for dates of service February 27, 2012 through March 19, 2012, and a claim for $116.19 for dates of service March 26, 2012 through April 18, 2012, and denied the branches of plaintiff's cross motion seeking summary judgment on so much of the complaint as sought to recover on those claims.

ORDERED that the order, insofar as appealed from, is modified by providing that the branches of defendant's motion seeking summary judgment dismissing so much of the complaint as sought to recover upon a claim for $174.02 for dates of service February 27, 2012 through March 19, 2012 and a claim for $116.19 for dates of service March 26, 2012 through April 18, 2012 are denied; as so modified, the order, insofar as appealed from, is affirmed, without costs.

In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, plaintiff appeals, as limited by its brief, 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 [*2]as sought to recover upon a claim for $174.02 for dates of service February 27, 2012 through March 19, 2012 and a claim for $116.19 for dates of service March 26, 2012 through April 18, 2012, and denied the branches of plaintiff's cross motion seeking summary judgment on so much of the complaint as sought to recover on those claims.

On appeal, plaintiff correctly argues that there is a triable issue of fact with respect to defendant's application of Ground Rule 11 of the workers' compensation fee schedule to the claims at issue.

Accordingly, the order, insofar as appealed from, is modified by providing that the branches of defendant's motion seeking summary judgment dismissing so much of the complaint as sought to recover upon a claim for $174.02 for dates of service February 27, 2012 through March 19, 2012 and a claim for $116.19 for dates of service March 26, 2012 through April 18, 2012, are denied.

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

Paul Kenny
Chief Clerk
Decision Date: September 08, 2017

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Lynbrook Pt & Ot, PLLC v. Foremost Ins. Co., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lynbrook-pt-ot-pllc-v-foremost-ins-co-nyappterm-2017.