Rehab. Medical Care of New York, P. C. v. Travelers Insurance

188 Misc. 2d 176, 727 N.Y.S.2d 247, 2001 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 53
CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York
DecidedFebruary 1, 2001
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 188 Misc. 2d 176 (Rehab. Medical Care of New York, P. C. v. Travelers Insurance) 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
Rehab. Medical Care of New York, P. C. v. Travelers Insurance, 188 Misc. 2d 176, 727 N.Y.S.2d 247, 2001 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 53 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

Judgment unanimously reversed without costs and a new trial ordered.

[177]*177This is an action by a medical provider to recover no-fault benefits for medical services performed on the insured. The insured assigned her claim to the plaintiff. The assignment provides as follows:

“In consideration of services rendered or to be rendered, I hereby assign to the provider of services and/or his/her assignees so much of my first party no-fault automobile insurance benefits and rights, attendant thereto, as shall equal the full amount of the bill for such services and the provider or his assign may secure same in my name.
“I further understand if said sum is not collected, I remain personally liable therefor.”

The trial court dismissed the complaint on the ground that plaintiff has no standing to sue because the plaintiff assignee reserved its right to sue the assignor if it could not collect from the insurance company.

In our view, the fact that the assignment reserved the assignee’s right to collect the debt from the assignor if not collected from the insurance company did not invalidate the assignment. Travelers Insurance had written instructions from the assignor, Dor Vania, to pay her insurance benefits directly to the plaintiff and no claim is made that she had in any manner revoked or intended to revoke those instructions. Therefore, the authorization to pay no-fault benefits constitutes an assignment enabling the plaintiff health care provider to sue to recover the insurance proceeds applicable to the medical services provided (Gingold v State Farm Ins. Co., 168 Misc 2d 62; see also, Pain Resource Ctr. v Travelers Ins. Co., 185 Misc 2d 409).

Scholnick, P. J., Patterson and Golia, JJ., concur.

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

Related

John T. Mather Memorial Hospital v. Linzer
32 Misc. 3d 59 (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
S&M Supply Inc. v. New York Central Mutual Fire Insurance
193 Misc. 2d 282 (Civil Court of the City of New York, 2002)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
188 Misc. 2d 176, 727 N.Y.S.2d 247, 2001 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 53, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rehab-medical-care-of-new-york-p-c-v-travelers-insurance-nyappterm-2001.