Quality Health Supply Corp. v. Amica Mut. Ins. Co.

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Quality Health Supply Corp. v. Amica Mut. Ins. Co.

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedDecember 6, 2019

Docket2019 NYSlipOp 51969(U)

StatusPublished

This text of Quality Health Supply Corp. v. Amica Mut. Ins. Co. (Quality Health Supply Corp. v. Amica Mut. 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

Quality Health Supply Corp. v. Amica Mut. Ins. Co., (N.Y. Ct. App. 2019).

Pincite

Opinion

Quality Health Supply Corp., as Assignee of Evertz, Shea, Respondent,

against

Amica Mutual Ins. Co., Appellant.

Lawrence N. Rogak, LLC (Lawrence N. Rogak of counsel), for appellant. The Rybak Firm, PLLC (Damin J. Toell of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Odessa Kennedy, J.), entered January 11, 2018. The order, insofar as appealed from as limited by the brief, failed to decide the branch of defendant's motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the coverage limits of the insurance policy had been exhausted.

ORDERED that the appeal is dismissed.

In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, defendant moved for summary judgment on the grounds that it never received the claims at issue and that the coverage limits available under the insurance policy had already been exhausted. Plaintiff cross-moved for summary judgment. By order entered January 11, 2018, the Civil Court denied both the branch of defendant's motion seeking summary judgment on the ground that defendant had never received the claims at issue, and plaintiff's cross motion, stating that there was an issue of fact with respect to defendant's defense that it had not received the claims at issue.

Defendant's sole argument on appeal is that the Civil Court erred in failing to decide the branch of defendant's motion which sought summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the coverage limits available under the subject insurance policy had already been [*2]exhausted. However, no appeal lies from an order or portion thereof which fails to determine a motion or branch thereof (see Baez v First Liberty Ins. Corp., 95 AD3d 1250 [2012]). Thus, the branch of defendant's motion which was not addressed by the Civil Court remains pending and undecided (see Fanelli v J.C. Millbank Constr. Co., Inc., 91 AD3d 703 [2012]; Katz v Katz, 68 AD2d 536, 542-543 [1979]).

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

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

ENTER:
Paul Kenny
Chief Clerk
Decision Date: December 6, 2019

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

Quality Health Supply Corp., as Assignee of Evertz, Shea, Respondent,

against

Amica Mutual Ins. Co., Appellant.

Lawrence N. Rogak, LLC (Lawrence N. Rogak of counsel), for appellant. The Rybak Firm, PLLC (Damin J. Toell of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Odessa Kennedy, J.), entered January 11, 2018. The order, insofar as appealed from as limited by the brief, failed to decide the branch of defendant's motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the coverage limits of the insurance policy had been exhausted.

ORDERED that the appeal is dismissed.

In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, defendant moved for summary judgment on the grounds that it never received the claims at issue and that the coverage limits available under the insurance policy had already been exhausted. Plaintiff cross-moved for summary judgment. By order entered January 11, 2018, the Civil Court denied both the branch of defendant's motion seeking summary judgment on the ground that defendant had never received the claims at issue, and plaintiff's cross motion, stating that there was an issue of fact with respect to defendant's defense that it had not received the claims at issue.

Defendant's sole argument on appeal is that the Civil Court erred in failing to decide the branch of defendant's motion which sought summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the coverage limits available under the subject insurance policy had already been [*2]exhausted. However, no appeal lies from an order or portion thereof which fails to determine a motion or branch thereof (see Baez v First Liberty Ins. Corp., 95 AD3d 1250 [2012]). Thus, the branch of defendant's motion which was not addressed by the Civil Court remains pending and undecided (see Fanelli v J.C. Millbank Constr. Co., Inc., 91 AD3d 703 [2012]; Katz v Katz, 68 AD2d 536, 542-543 [1979]).

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

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

ENTER:
Paul Kenny
Chief Clerk
Decision Date: December 6, 2019

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Quality Health Supply Corp. v. Amica Mut. Ins. Co., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/quality-health-supply-corp-v-amica-mut-ins-co-nyappterm-2019.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack