S.J. Pahng, M.D., P.C. v. AutoOne Ins. Co.

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

S.J. Pahng, M.D., P.C. v. AutoOne Ins. Co.

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedNovember 3, 2017

Docket2017 NYSlipOp 51513(U)

StatusPublished

This text of S.J. Pahng, M.D., P.C. v. AutoOne Ins. Co. (S.J. Pahng, M.D., P.C. v. AutoOne 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

S.J. Pahng, M.D., P.C. v. AutoOne Ins. Co., (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

S.J. Pahng, M.D., P.C., as Assignee of Jin Hee Ma, Respondent,

against

AutoOne Insurance Company, Appellant.

Law Office of Jason Tenenbaum, P.C. (Jason Tenenbaum, Esq.), for appellant. Law Office of Richard W. Shin, for respondent (no brief filed).

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Carmen R. Velasquez, J.), entered October 6, 2014. The order, insofar as appealed from as limited by the brief, denied the branch of defendant's motion seeking to compel plaintiff to appear for an examination before trial.

ORDERED that the order, insofar as appealed from, is reversed, with $30 costs, the branch of defendant's motion seeking to compel plaintiff to appear for an examination before trial is granted, and the examination shall be held within 60 days of the date of this decision and order, at such time and place to be specified in a written notice by defendant of not less than 10 days, or at such other time and place as the parties may agree upon.

In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, insofar as is relevant to this appeal, the Civil Court denied the branch of a motion by defendant seeking to compel plaintiff to appear for an examination before trial (EBT).

As defendant's moving papers established that defendant had served plaintiff with a notice for an EBT, which examination was material and necessary to defendant's lack of medical necessity defense (see Great Wall Acupuncture, P.C. v General Assur. Co., 21 Misc 3d 45, 47 [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2008]), the branch of defendant's motion seeking to compel plaintiff to appear for an EBT should have been granted (see CPLR 3101 [a]).

Accordingly, the order, insofar as appealed from, is reversed and the branch of defendant's motion seeking to compel plaintiff to appear for an examination before trial is granted.

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

ENTER:
Paul Kenny
Chief Clerk
Decision Date: November 03, 2017

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