July 18, 2025

Hand By Hand PT, P.C. v Personal Serv. Ins. Co. (2025 NY Slip Op 51177(U))

https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/hand-by-hand-pt-p-c-v-personal-serv-ins-co-2025-ny-slip-op-51177u/

Court: Appellate Term, Second Department
Decided: July 18, 2025
Citation: 2025 NY Slip Op 51177(U)
Posture: Motion to dismiss (CPLR 3211)
Outcome: Provider prevailed
Issues: Jurisdiction and service

Cite as

Hand By Hand PT, P.C. v Personal Serv. Ins. Co., 2025 NY Slip Op 51177(U) (App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2025)

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.

The insurer's appeal from an order directing a traverse hearing on its dismissal motion was dismissed. The Civil Court had granted the dismissal branch only to the extent of setting a traverse hearing. The Appellate Term, Second Department, relied on the reasons stated in the companion appeal, Shamrock Med., P.C. v Personal Serv. Ins. Co., decided the same day, No. 2024-858 K C.

Reported in New York Official Reports at Hand By Hand PT, P.C. v Personal Serv. Ins. Co. (2025 NY Slip Op 51177(U))

[*1]

Hand By Hand PT, P.C. v Personal Serv. Ins. Co.

2025 NY Slip Op 51177(U)

Decided on July 18, 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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 18, 2025

SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 2d, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS

PRESENT: : WAVNY TOUSSAINT, P.J., CHEREÉ A. BUGGS, LISA S. OTTLEY, JJ
2024-880 K C

Hand By Hand PT, P.C., as Assignee of Alendri Rodriguez, Respondent,

against

Personal Service Insurance Company, Appellant.

Freiberg, Peck & Kang, LLP (Yilo J. Kang of counsel), for appellant. Kopelevich & Feldsherova, P.C., for respondent (no brief filed).

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Edward H. King, J.), entered June 4, 2024. The order, insofar as appealed from, granted the branch of defendant’s motion seeking to dismiss the complaint only to the extent of setting the matter down for a traverse hearing.

ORDERED that the appeal is dismissed.

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 (Edward H. King, J.) entered June 4, 2024 as granted the branch of defendant’s motion seeking to dismiss the complaint only to the extent of setting the matter down for a traverse hearing.

For the reasons stated in Shamrock Med., P.C., as Assignee of Rexford Bishop v Personal Serv. Ins. Co. (___ Misc 3d ___, 2025 NY Slip Op _____ [appeal No. 2024-858 K C], decided herewith), the appeal is dismissed.

TOUSSAINT, P.J., BUGGS and OTTLEY, JJ., concur.

ENTER:
Paul Kenny
Chief Clerk
Decision Date: July 18, 2025

Similar decisions

Shamrock Med., P.C. v Personal Serv. Ins. Co. (2025 NY Slip Op 51175(U))An order setting a matter down for a traverse hearing is not appealable as of right under CCA 1702 (a) (2).
Hand By Hand PT, P.C. v Titan Indem. Co. (2021 NY Slip Op 50644(U))The insurer established the provider's failure to appear for two duly scheduled EUOs and timely denial of the claims on that ground.
Hand By Hand PT, P.C. v Nationwide Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. (2022 NY Slip Op 50607(U))The insurer established timely EUO notices, the provider's nonappearances and timely denials, and the provider failed to rebut that showing.
LVOV Acupuncture, P.C. v Personal Serv. Ins. Co. (2025 NY Slip Op 51176(U))The insurer's appeal from an order directing a traverse hearing on its dismissal motion was dismissed.
Hands On Physical Therapy Care v Ameriprise Ins. (2022 NY Slip Op 50571(U))The insurer's motion for summary judgment dismissing the provider's no-fault complaint was granted and the provider's cross motion was denied.