September 3, 2026

NR Motion PT, P.C. v Allstate Ins. (2026 NY Slip Op 51460(U))

Headnote

A physical therapy provider sued Allstate as assignee to recover no-fault benefits, and Allstate moved for summary judgment on the statutory intoxication exclusion and a fee-schedule defense. The court explained that an insurer relying on the intoxication exclusion must prove with admissible evidence both that the injured person was intoxicated or impaired and that the injuries resulted from operating a vehicle in that condition. Allstate relied on uncertified, unauthenticated medical records and a police accident report without any evidentiary foundation, unlike the certified hospital records and toxicology report in the case it cited. The assignor's examination under oath also denied being intoxicated. The court further held that Allstate had not shown by admissible evidence that the charges exceeded the fee schedule. The motion was denied in its entirety, with no finding of intoxication, and the insurer was left to carry its burdens at trial.

Reported in New York Official Reports at NR Motion PT, P.C. v Allstate Ins. (2026 NY Slip Op 51460(U))

NR Motion PT, P.C. v Allstate Ins.

2026 NY Slip Op 51460(U)

Decided on September 3, 2026

Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County

Sandra Elena Roper, J.

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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Digest-Index Classification: Insurance—No-Fault Automobile Insurance—Summary Judgment-Intoxication Exclusion

NR Motion PT, P.C., A/A/O BRITTNEY BROTHERS, Plaintiff,

Allstate Insurance, Defendant.

Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County

Decided on September 3, 2026

Index No. CV-034409-15/KI

The Rybak Firm, PLLC, Brooklyn, New York, for Plaintiff.

Abrams, Cohen & Associates, New York, New York, for Defendant.

Sandra Elena Roper, J.

[*1]

Papers

Notice of Motion and Affidavits Annexed NYSCEF

Exhibits NYSCEF

Upon the foregoing cited papers, the Decision/Order on Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment is as follows:

Defendant’s motion for summary judgment is DENIED in its entirety. An insurer seeking summary judgment based upon the statutory intoxication exclusion bears the burden of establishing, through competent and admissible evidence, both: (1) that the eligible injured person was intoxicated or impaired; and (2) that the person’s injuries resulted from operating a motor vehicle while in that condition (see Westchester Med. Ctr. v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 77 AD3d 737 [2d Dept 2010]). Defendant has failed to satisfy its burden. The insurer in Westchester Medical Center, upon which Defendant relies, supported its motion with unimpeachable certified hospital records with confirming toxicology report of intoxication. Here, Defendant relies upon uncertified and unauthenticated medical records and a police accident report that were not submitted in admissible form. Defendant failed to provide an affidavit or other admissible competent evidentiary foundation establishing the admissibility of those documents under CPLR § 4518 or any other applicable evidentiary rule. Consequently, those materials are insufficient to establish Defendant’s entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, obviating the shifting of the burden to rebut by Plaintiff.

Moreover, the assignor’s examination-under-oath testimony expressly disputes that she was intoxicated or impaired at the time of the accident. Defendant failed to submit competent [*2]evidence conclusively establishing either the assignor’s intoxication or the requisite causal connection between any alleged intoxication and the accident or resulting injuries. Speculation, suspicion, and unauthenticated documentary evidence cannot satisfy Defendant’s prima facie burden.

Upon Defendant’s failure to establish its prima facie entitlement to summary judgment, its motion must be denied regardless of the sufficiency of Plaintiff’s opposing papers. Defendant also failed to establish its fee-schedule defense as a matter of law. Defendant did not submit competent and admissible evidence demonstrating that Plaintiff’s charges exceeded the applicable fee schedule or otherwise identifying a legally sufficient basis for reducing or denying the subject claims.

Accordingly, it is hereby:

ORDERED, that Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED in its entirety and that no finding is made that the assignor was intoxicated or impaired or that any alleged intoxication or impairment caused or contributed to the accident or resulting injuries. To the extent Defendant continues to pursue intoxication defense at trial, Defendant shall bear the burden of proving, through competent and admissible evidence, both the alleged intoxication or impairment and the required causal connection between that condition and the accident and resulting injuries. Defendant shall likewise bear the burden of establishing any fee-schedule defense through competent and admissible evidence at trial. LH

This constitutes the decision and order of the Court.

Date: September 3, 2026

Brooklyn, New York

Honorable Sandra Elena Roper

Judge of the Civil Court, Kings County