Metro Psychological Servs., P.C. v. Allstate Ins. Co.

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Metro Psychological Servs., P.C. v. Allstate Ins. Co.

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedMay 10, 2019

Docket2019 NYSlipOp 50748(U)

StatusPublished

This text of Metro Psychological Servs., P.C. v. Allstate Ins. Co. (Metro Psychological Servs., P.C. v. Allstate 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

Metro Psychological Servs., P.C. v. Allstate Ins. Co., (N.Y. Ct. App. 2019).

Pincite

Opinion

Metro Psychological Services, P.C., as Assignee of Adams Kenneth, Appellant,

against

Allstate Insurance Company, Respondent.

Law Office of Melissa Betancourt, P.C. (Melissa Betancourt of counsel), for appellant. Abrams, Cohen & Associates, P.C. (Frank Piccininni of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Steven Z. Mostofsky, J.), entered August 19, 2016. The order granted defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and denied plaintiff's cross motion for summary judgment.

ORDERED that the order is modified by providing that defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is denied; as so modified, the order is affirmed, without costs.

In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Civil Court which granted defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and denied plaintiff's cross motion for summary judgment.

Plaintiff correctly contends that defendant's papers failed to establish, as a matter of law, that the denial of claim forms had been timely mailed (see St. Vincent's Hosp. of Richmond v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 50 AD3d 1123 [2008]). As a result, defendant did not demonstrate that it is not precluded from asserting its proffered defenses. Consequently, defendant is not entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

However, contrary to plaintiff's further contention, plaintiff failed to establish that the claims at issue had not been timely denied (see Viviane Etienne Med. Care, P.C. v Country-Wide Ins. Co., 25 NY3d 498 [2015]), or that defendant had issued timely denials of claim that were conclusory, vague or without merit as a matter of law (see Westchester Med. Ctr. v Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 78 AD3d 1168 [2010]; Ave T MPC Corp. v Auto One Ins. Co., 32 Misc 3d 128[A], 2011 NY Slip Op 51292[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2011]). As a result, plaintiff's cross motion for summary judgment was properly denied.

Accordingly, the order is modified by providing that defendant's motion for summary [*2]judgment dismissing the complaint is denied.

PESCE, P.J., ALIOTTA and ELLIOT, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Paul Kenny
Chief Clerk
Decision Date: May 10, 2019

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

Metro Psychological Services, P.C., as Assignee of Adams Kenneth, Appellant,

against

Allstate Insurance Company, Respondent.

Law Office of Melissa Betancourt, P.C. (Melissa Betancourt of counsel), for appellant. Abrams, Cohen & Associates, P.C. (Frank Piccininni of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Steven Z. Mostofsky, J.), entered August 19, 2016. The order granted defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and denied plaintiff's cross motion for summary judgment.

ORDERED that the order is modified by providing that defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is denied; as so modified, the order is affirmed, without costs.

In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Civil Court which granted defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and denied plaintiff's cross motion for summary judgment.

Plaintiff correctly contends that defendant's papers failed to establish, as a matter of law, that the denial of claim forms had been timely mailed (see St. Vincent's Hosp. of Richmond v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 50 AD3d 1123 [2008]). As a result, defendant did not demonstrate that it is not precluded from asserting its proffered defenses. Consequently, defendant is not entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

However, contrary to plaintiff's further contention, plaintiff failed to establish that the claims at issue had not been timely denied (see Viviane Etienne Med. Care, P.C. v Country-Wide Ins. Co., 25 NY3d 498 [2015]), or that defendant had issued timely denials of claim that were conclusory, vague or without merit as a matter of law (see Westchester Med. Ctr. v Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 78 AD3d 1168 [2010]; Ave T MPC Corp. v Auto One Ins. Co., 32 Misc 3d 128[A], 2011 NY Slip Op 51292[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2011]). As a result, plaintiff's cross motion for summary judgment was properly denied.

Accordingly, the order is modified by providing that defendant's motion for summary [*2]judgment dismissing the complaint is denied.

PESCE, P.J., ALIOTTA and ELLIOT, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Paul Kenny
Chief Clerk
Decision Date: May 10, 2019

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Metro Psychological Servs., P.C. v. Allstate Ins. Co., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/metro-psychological-servs-pc-v-allstate-ins-co-nyappterm-2019.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack