Spine Care of NJ, P.C. v. Global Liberty Ins. Co. of N.Y.

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Spine Care of NJ, P.C. v. Global Liberty Ins. Co. of N.Y.

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedOctober 11, 2019

Docket2019 NYSlipOp 51632(U)

StatusPublished

This text of Spine Care of NJ, P.C. v. Global Liberty Ins. Co. of N.Y. (Spine Care of NJ, P.C. v. Global Liberty Ins. Co. of N.Y.) 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

Spine Care of NJ, P.C. v. Global Liberty Ins. Co. of N.Y., (N.Y. Ct. App. 2019).

Pincite

Opinion

Spine Care of NJ, P.C., as Assignee of Nohelia Francechi, Respondent,

against

Global Liberty Insurance Company of New York, Appellant.

Law Office of Jason Tenenbaum, P.C. (Jason Tenenbaum of counsel), for appellant. Zara Javakov, P.C. (Zara Javakov of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Sharon Bourne-Clark, J.), entered June 14, 2018. The order, insofar as appealed from and as limited by the brief, granted the branches of plaintiff's cross motion seeking summary judgment on so much of the complaint as sought to recover on bills for services rendered on December 21, 2016 and December 29, 2016.

ORDERED that the order, insofar as appealed from, is reversed, with $30 costs, and the branches of plaintiff's cross motion seeking summary judgment on so much of the complaint as sought to recover on bills for services rendered on December 21, 2016 and December 29, 2016 are denied.

In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, defendant appeals, as limited by the brief, from so much of an order of the Civil Court as granted the branches of plaintiff's cross motion seeking summary judgment on so much of the complaint as sought to recover on bills for services rendered on December 21, 2016 and December 29, 2016.

The branches of plaintiff's cross motion seeking summary judgment on so much of the complaint as sought to recover on bills for services rendered on December 21, 2016 and December 29, 2016 should have been denied, as the proof submitted by plaintiff failed to establish that the claims had not been timely denied (see Viviane Etienne Med. Care, P.C. v Country-Wide Ins. Co., 25 NY3d 498 [2015]), or that defendant had issued timely denial of claim [*2]forms that were conclusory, vague or without merit as a matter of law (see Westchester Med. Ctr. v Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 78 AD3d 1168 [2010]; Ave T MPC Corp. v Auto One Ins. Co., 32 Misc 3d 128[A], 2011 NY Slip Op 51292[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2011]).

Accordingly, the order, insofar as appealed from, is reversed, and the branches of plaintiff's cross motion seeking summary judgment on so much of the complaint as sought to recover on bills for services rendered on December 21, 2016 and December 29, 2016 are denied.

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

ENTER:
Paul Kenny
Chief Clerk
Decision Date: October 11, 2019

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

Spine Care of NJ, P.C., as Assignee of Nohelia Francechi, Respondent,

against

Global Liberty Insurance Company of New York, Appellant.

Law Office of Jason Tenenbaum, P.C. (Jason Tenenbaum of counsel), for appellant. Zara Javakov, P.C. (Zara Javakov of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Sharon Bourne-Clark, J.), entered June 14, 2018. The order, insofar as appealed from and as limited by the brief, granted the branches of plaintiff's cross motion seeking summary judgment on so much of the complaint as sought to recover on bills for services rendered on December 21, 2016 and December 29, 2016.

ORDERED that the order, insofar as appealed from, is reversed, with $30 costs, and the branches of plaintiff's cross motion seeking summary judgment on so much of the complaint as sought to recover on bills for services rendered on December 21, 2016 and December 29, 2016 are denied.

In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, defendant appeals, as limited by the brief, from so much of an order of the Civil Court as granted the branches of plaintiff's cross motion seeking summary judgment on so much of the complaint as sought to recover on bills for services rendered on December 21, 2016 and December 29, 2016.

The branches of plaintiff's cross motion seeking summary judgment on so much of the complaint as sought to recover on bills for services rendered on December 21, 2016 and December 29, 2016 should have been denied, as the proof submitted by plaintiff failed to establish that the claims had not been timely denied (see Viviane Etienne Med. Care, P.C. v Country-Wide Ins. Co., 25 NY3d 498 [2015]), or that defendant had issued timely denial of claim [*2]forms that were conclusory, vague or without merit as a matter of law (see Westchester Med. Ctr. v Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 78 AD3d 1168 [2010]; Ave T MPC Corp. v Auto One Ins. Co., 32 Misc 3d 128[A], 2011 NY Slip Op 51292[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2011]).

Accordingly, the order, insofar as appealed from, is reversed, and the branches of plaintiff's cross motion seeking summary judgment on so much of the complaint as sought to recover on bills for services rendered on December 21, 2016 and December 29, 2016 are denied.

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

ENTER:
Paul Kenny
Chief Clerk
Decision Date: October 11, 2019

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Spine Care of NJ, P.C. v. Global Liberty Ins. Co. of N.Y., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/spine-care-of-nj-pc-v-global-liberty-ins-co-of-ny-nyappterm-2019.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack