Nyack Hospital v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Nyack Hospital v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance

8 A.D.3d 250, 777 N.Y.S.2d 700, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7441

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

DecidedJune 1, 2004

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 8 A.D.3d 250 (Nyack Hospital v. State Farm Mutual Automobile 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

Nyack Hospital v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance, 8 A.D.3d 250, 777 N.Y.S.2d 700, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7441 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover no-fault benefits, the defendant appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Parga, J.), dated November 12, 2003, as granted the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment and denied the defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The plaintiff met its initial burden of demonstrating its entitlement to summary judgment by establishing that the defendant did not deny or pay the two claims in question within 30 days (see Insurance Law § 5106 [a]; Central Gen. Hosp. v Chubb Group of Ins. Cos., 90 NY2d 195 [1997]; Bonetti v Integon Natl. Ins. Co., 269 AD2d 413, 414 [2000]). The defendant thereafter failed to submit sufficient evidence in admissible form to raise a triable issue of fact regarding whether the medical treatment alleged in the first cause of action was not causally related to an insured accident and whether the underlying contract of insurance alleged in the third cause of action had been cancelled. Therefore, the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment was properly granted.

In light of our determination, the defendant’s remaining contentions are academic. Smith, J.P., S. Miller, Crane and Rivera, 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 benefits, the defendant appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Parga, J.), dated November 12, 2003, as granted the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment and denied the defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The plaintiff met its initial burden of demonstrating its entitlement to summary judgment by establishing that the defendant did not deny or pay the two claims in question within 30 days (see Insurance Law § 5106 [a]; Central Gen. Hosp. v Chubb Group of Ins. Cos., 90 NY2d 195 [1997]; Bonetti v Integon Natl. Ins. Co., 269 AD2d 413, 414 [2000]). The defendant thereafter failed to submit sufficient evidence in admissible form to raise a triable issue of fact regarding whether the medical treatment alleged in the first cause of action was not causally related to an insured accident and whether the underlying contract of insurance alleged in the third cause of action had been cancelled. Therefore, the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment was properly granted.

In light of our determination, the defendant’s remaining contentions are academic. Smith, J.P., S. Miller, Crane and Rivera, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

8 A.D.3d 250, 777 N.Y.S.2d 700, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7441, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nyack-hospital-v-state-farm-mutual-automobile-insurance-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack