TAM Med. Supply Corp. v. Omni Indem. Co.
This text of TAM Med. Supply Corp. v. Omni Indem. Co. (TAM Med. Supply Corp. v. Omni Indem. 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.
Opinion
against
Omni Indemnity Company, Appellant.
Freiberg, Peck & Kang, LLP (Yilo J. Kang, Esq.), for appellant. The Rybak Firm, PLLC (Damin J. Toell, Esq.), for respondent.
Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Carol Ruth Feinman, J.), entered February 25, 2014. The order, insofar as appealed from, denied defendant's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
ORDERED that the order, insofar as appealed from, is reversed, with $30 costs, and defendant's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted.
In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, defendant appeals from so much of an order of the Civil Court denying defendant's cross motion as sought summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that defendant had not issued an insurance policy covering the vehicle which was involved in the accident in question.
For the reasons stated in Tam Med. Supply Corp. v Omni Indem. Co. (48 Misc 3d 142[A], 2015 NY Slip Op 51294[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2015]), the order, insofar as appealed from, is reversed and defendant's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted.
PESCE, P.J., ALIOTTA and SOLOMON, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Paul Kenny
Chief Clerk
Decision Date: July 21, 2017
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
TAM Med. Supply Corp. v. Omni Indem. Co., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tam-med-supply-corp-v-omni-indem-co-nyappterm-2017.