Sovera Med. Supply Corp. v. 21st Century Ins. Co.

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Sovera Med. Supply Corp. v. 21st Century Ins. Co.

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedNovember 1, 2019

Docket2019 NYSlipOp 51802(U)

StatusPublished

This text of Sovera Med. Supply Corp. v. 21st Century Ins. Co. (Sovera Med. Supply Corp. v. 21st Century 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

Sovera Med. Supply Corp. v. 21st Century Ins. Co., (N.Y. Ct. App. 2019).

Pincite

Opinion

Sovera Medical Supply Corp., as Assignee of Zunilda Garcia, Appellant,

against

21st Century Insurance Company, Respondent.

The Rybak Firm, PLLC (Damin J. Toell of counsel), for appellant. Law Offices of Buratti, Rothenberg & Burns (Rachel L. Hollander of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Richard J. Montelione, J.), entered March 27, 2018. The order granted defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and denied plaintiff's cross motion for summary judgment.

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

In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground, among others, that there was a lack of medical necessity for the supplies in question, and plaintiff cross-moved for summary judgment. The Civil Court granted defendant's motion and denied plaintiff's cross motion.

Contrary to plaintiff's contention, the peer review report submitted by defendant sufficiently set forth a factual basis and medical rationale for the peer reviewer's determination that there was a lack of medical necessity for the supplies at issue. In opposition to defendant's motion, plaintiff submitted an affidavit from a doctor which failed to meaningfully refer to, let alone sufficiently rebut, the conclusions set forth in the peer review report (see Pan Chiropractic, [*2]P.C. v Mercury Ins. Co., 24 Misc 3d 136[A], 2009 NY Slip Op 51495[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2009]).

In light of the foregoing, we reach no other issue.

Accordingly, the order is affirmed.

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

ENTER:
Paul Kenny
Chief Clerk
Decision Date: November 01, 2019

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

Sovera Medical Supply Corp., as Assignee of Zunilda Garcia, Appellant,

against

21st Century Insurance Company, Respondent.

The Rybak Firm, PLLC (Damin J. Toell of counsel), for appellant. Law Offices of Buratti, Rothenberg & Burns (Rachel L. Hollander of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Richard J. Montelione, J.), entered March 27, 2018. The order granted defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and denied plaintiff's cross motion for summary judgment.

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

In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground, among others, that there was a lack of medical necessity for the supplies in question, and plaintiff cross-moved for summary judgment. The Civil Court granted defendant's motion and denied plaintiff's cross motion.

Contrary to plaintiff's contention, the peer review report submitted by defendant sufficiently set forth a factual basis and medical rationale for the peer reviewer's determination that there was a lack of medical necessity for the supplies at issue. In opposition to defendant's motion, plaintiff submitted an affidavit from a doctor which failed to meaningfully refer to, let alone sufficiently rebut, the conclusions set forth in the peer review report (see Pan Chiropractic, [*2]P.C. v Mercury Ins. Co., 24 Misc 3d 136[A], 2009 NY Slip Op 51495[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2009]).

In light of the foregoing, we reach no other issue.

Accordingly, the order is affirmed.

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

ENTER:
Paul Kenny
Chief Clerk
Decision Date: November 01, 2019

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Sovera Med. Supply Corp. v. 21st Century Ins. Co., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sovera-med-supply-corp-v-21st-century-ins-co-nyappterm-2019.