July 11, 2025
Prompt Med. Group, Inc. v Erie Ins. Co. of N.Y. (2025 NY Slip Op 51164(U))
https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/prompt-med-group-inc-v-erie-ins-co-of-n-y-2025-ny-slip-op-51164u/
- Decided
- July 11, 2025
- Citation
- 2025 NY Slip Op 51164(U)
- Posture
- Summary judgment
- Outcome
- Provider prevailed
- Legal questions
- No covered accident (founded belief) (see the maps)
Posture, outcome, issues and treatment by other decisions are Beynenson Law’s classification. Treatment labels are assigned by a language model reading the citing decision; negative and appeal-history labels are checked by a second reader.
Summary
Editorial summary by Beynenson Law, not part of the court’s decision.
Reported in New York Official Reports at Prompt Med. Group, Inc. v Erie Ins. Co. of N.Y. (2025 NY Slip Op 51164(U))
[*1]| Prompt Med. Group, Inc. v Erie Ins. Co. of N.Y. |
| 2025 NY Slip Op 51164(U) |
| Decided on July 11, 2025 |
| Appellate Term, Second Department |
| Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. |
| This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports. |
Decided on July 11, 2025
PRESENT: : MARINA CORA MUNDY, J.P., WAVNY TOUSSAINT, JOANNE D. QUIÑONES, JJ
2024-257 RI C
against
Erie Insurance Company of New York, Respondent.
Gary Tsirelman, P.C. (Galina Feldsherova of counsel), for appellant. Law Office of Robyn M. Brilliant (Robyn M. Brilliant of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Richmond County (Mary A. Kavanagh, J.), dated February 1, 2024. The order granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
ORDERED that, on the court’s own motion, the notice of appeal from a “judgment” purportedly entered February 1, 2024 is deemed a notice of appeal from the order dated February 1, 2024 (see CPLR 5520 [c]); and it is further,
ORDERED that the order is reversed, with $30 costs, and defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is denied.
In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Civil Court (Mary A. Kavanagh, J.) dated February 1, 2024 granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the vehicle insured by defendant (the insured vehicle), was not involved in the accident.
In support of its motion, defendant relied on the truth of statements made in a police report regarding the accident. While the police report was certified, the statements within the report attributed to the driver of an unrelated vehicle, a witness and plaintiff’s assignor were inadmissible hearsay, as no exception to the hearsay rule was established for the statements (see Yassin v Blackman, 188 AD3d 62, 66 [2020]; New York Hosp. Med. Ctr. of Queens v Utica Mut. Ins. Co., 38 Misc 3d 128[A], 2012 NY Slip Op 52388[U], *2 [App Term, 2d Dept, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2012]). The statement in a purported transcript of a call with the owner of the insured vehicle, which defendant offered for its truth, was also inadmissible hearsay. In any event, defendant’s own papers demonstrated that there are conflicting accounts as to how the alleged accident occurred and whether the insured vehicle was involved. Thus, defendant’s motion failed to demonstrate, as a matter of law, that there are no material issues of fact to be determined.
Accordingly, the order is reversed and defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is denied.
MUNDY, J.P., TOUSSAINT and QUIÑONES, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Paul Kenny
Chief Clerk
Decision Date: July 11, 2025
Legal questions
A question of no-fault law this decision rules on, from our Legal Questions pages. Bars count the decisions on the question by year and court, coloured by category; circles are this decision and the decisions on the question it cites or that cite it. Point at a bar or circle for details. The categories and summaries are Beynenson Law’s classification, made by a language model and checked by a second reading.
Did the insurer show the claimed injuries did not arise from a covered accident (staged, intentional, or unrelated)?
This decision: Insurer's motion denied: proof did not establish the defense prima facie; defense still open
Held the insurer did not establish as a matter of law that its insured vehicle was not involved, because statements in the police report and a call transcript were inadmissible hearsay and its own papers showed conflicting accounts.
Of the 234 decisions on this question in the Second Department courts and the Court of Appeals, 20 (this one included) are in the same category.
Cited in this decision
A label shows how this decision treated the case it cites.
- New York Hosp. Med. Ctr. of Queens v Utica Mut. Ins. Co. (2012 NY Slip Op 52388(U)) FollowedThe insurer established that the assignor's injuries did not arise from an insured incident, and the provider's records raised no triable issue.
Similar decisions
- Prompt Med. Group, Inc. v Foremost Signature Ins. Co. (2025 NY Slip Op 51977(U))The insurer failed to prove proper cancellation notice or that cancellation was effective against an assignor outside the insured's household.
- Integral Med. Supply Corp. v Progressive Ins. Co. (2025 NY Slip Op 50493(U))A material misrepresentation defense concerning a vehicle's garaging location is subject to preclusion for untimely denial.
- Greenway Med. Supply Corp. v Repwest Ins. Co. (2022 NY Slip Op 51269(U))The defendant claims handler established that it had issued no automobile policy covering the accident and owed no no-fault coverage.
- Dynasty Med. Care, P.C. v 21st Century Sec. Ins. Co. (2018 NY Slip Op 51550(U))The insurer established late accident notice through an NF-2 received more than 30 days after the accident and timely denials on that ground.
- Medical Supply of NY Servs., Inc. v Foremost Signature Ins. Co. (2025 NY Slip Op 51978(U))The insurer's summary judgment motion based on preaccident policy cancellation was denied on appeal.