March 1, 2005

Metro Med. Diagnostics, P.C. v Motor Veh. Acc. Indem. Corp. (2005 NY Slip Op 50238(U))

Headnote

A provider sued MVAIC for no-fault benefits as assignee of three assignors whose claims arose from three separate accidents, and MVAIC moved under CPLR 603 to sever the six causes of action into three actions. The Civil Court denied severance. The Appellate Term found that the facts relating to each claim were likely to raise few if any common issues of law or fact, even if the policies were identical, and that the answer put in issue the necessity and reasonableness of the services and the sufficiency of the forms. It noted that the lower court had ruled before the Appellate Division decided Radiology Resource Network. The order was reversed and the motion to sever was granted.

Reported in New York Official Reports at Metro Med. Diagnostics, P.C. v Motor Veh. Acc. Indem. Corp. (2005 NY Slip Op 50238(U))

[*1]
Metro Med. Diagnostics, P.C. v Motor Veh. Acc. Indem. Corp.
2005 NY Slip Op 50238(U)
Decided on March 1, 2005
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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 March 1, 2005
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

APPELLATE TERM: 2nd and 11th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS

PRESENT: March 1, 2005 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK APPELLATE TERM : 2nd and 11th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS PRESENT : PESCE, P.J., PATTERSON and GOLIA, JJ.
2004-1019 Q C

METRO MEDICAL DIAGNOSTICS, PC Assignee of HELEN ROBINSON, JACKLINE WILLIAMS, and JASON HARRICHARAN, Respondent,

against

MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT INDEMNITY CORPORATION, Appellant.


Appeal by defendant from an order of the Civil Court, Queens County (H. Lane, J.), entered May 24, 2004, denying its motion to sever.


Order unanimously reversed without costs and defendant’s motion to sever granted.

Plaintiff commenced this action to recover no-fault benefits as assignee of three assignors. The claims arose out of three separate accidents. Defendant moved to sever the six causes of action in the complaint into three separate actions pursuant to CPLR 603, which motion the court below denied by order entered May 24, 2004.
In light of the recent trend in cases involving the severance of no-fault causes of action under similar circumstances, we find that the particular facts herein relating to each claim are likely to raise few, if any, common issues of law or fact, even if the assignors’ insurance policies are identical (see Radiology Resource Network, PC v Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co., 12 AD3d 185 [2004]). Defendant’s answer clearly places at issue, inter alia, the necessity and reasonableness of the rendered medical services and the sufficiency of the no-fault forms that have been submitted. We note that the lower court’s decision was rendered prior to the Appellate Division’s decision in Radiology Resource Network, PC (id.). [*2]
Decision Date: March 01, 2005