SMQ Med., P.C. v. National Liab. & Fire Ins.

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

SMQ Med., P.C. v. National Liab. & Fire Ins.

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedOctober 18, 2019

Docket2019 NYSlipOp 51681(U)

StatusPublished

This text of SMQ Med., P.C. v. National Liab. & Fire Ins. (SMQ Med., P.C. v. National Liab. & Fire Ins.) 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

SMQ Med., P.C. v. National Liab. & Fire Ins., (N.Y. Ct. App. 2019).

Pincite

Opinion

SMQ Medical, P.C., as Assignee of Marsha Dean, Appellant,

against

National Liability & Fire Insurance, Respondent.

Gary Tsirelman, P.C. (Daria Klein of counsel), for appellant. Law Offices of Moira Doherty, P.C. (Lisa Taranto-Fernandez of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (John J. Kelley, J.), entered July 22, 2016. The order granted defendant's motion to vacate a notice of trial and certificate of readiness and denied plaintiff's cross motion for, among other things, a protective order and to strike defendant's affirmative defenses.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with $25 costs.

In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, defendant's answer, served in June 2015, was accompanied by, among other things a demand for written interrogatories. After plaintiff served a notice of trial and certificate of readiness in September 2015, which stated that discovery was waived, defendant moved to vacate same, asserting that, contrary to plaintiff's representation, discovery was not waived. Plaintiff cross-moved for, among other things, a protective order and to strike defendant's affirmative defenses. The Civil Court granted defendant's motion and denied plaintiff's cross motion.

The court properly granted defendant's timely motion to vacate the notice of trial (see Uniform Rules for NY City Civ Ct [22 NYCRR] § 208.17 [c]) since it was based upon a certificate of readiness which contains the erroneous statement that discovery was waived (see [*2]Savino v Lewittes, 160 AD2d 176 [1990]; First Aid Occupational Therapy, PLLC v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 21 Misc 3d 128[A], 2008 NY Slip Op 51963[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2008]). In addition, contrary to plaintiff's contention, the court did not improvidently exercise its discretion when it denied plaintiff's cross motion seeking a protective order. Plaintiff's remaining contention lacks merit.

Accordingly, the order is affirmed.

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

ENTER:
Paul Kenny
Chief Clerk
Decision Date: October 18, 2019

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

SMQ Medical, P.C., as Assignee of Marsha Dean, Appellant,

against

National Liability & Fire Insurance, Respondent.

Gary Tsirelman, P.C. (Daria Klein of counsel), for appellant. Law Offices of Moira Doherty, P.C. (Lisa Taranto-Fernandez of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (John J. Kelley, J.), entered July 22, 2016. The order granted defendant's motion to vacate a notice of trial and certificate of readiness and denied plaintiff's cross motion for, among other things, a protective order and to strike defendant's affirmative defenses.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with $25 costs.

In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, defendant's answer, served in June 2015, was accompanied by, among other things a demand for written interrogatories. After plaintiff served a notice of trial and certificate of readiness in September 2015, which stated that discovery was waived, defendant moved to vacate same, asserting that, contrary to plaintiff's representation, discovery was not waived. Plaintiff cross-moved for, among other things, a protective order and to strike defendant's affirmative defenses. The Civil Court granted defendant's motion and denied plaintiff's cross motion.

The court properly granted defendant's timely motion to vacate the notice of trial (see Uniform Rules for NY City Civ Ct [22 NYCRR] § 208.17 [c]) since it was based upon a certificate of readiness which contains the erroneous statement that discovery was waived (see [*2]Savino v Lewittes, 160 AD2d 176 [1990]; First Aid Occupational Therapy, PLLC v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 21 Misc 3d 128[A], 2008 NY Slip Op 51963[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2008]). In addition, contrary to plaintiff's contention, the court did not improvidently exercise its discretion when it denied plaintiff's cross motion seeking a protective order. Plaintiff's remaining contention lacks merit.

Accordingly, the order is affirmed.

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

ENTER:
Paul Kenny
Chief Clerk
Decision Date: October 18, 2019

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

SMQ Med., P.C. v. National Liab. & Fire Ins., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smq-med-pc-v-national-liab-fire-ins-nyappterm-2019.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack