April 29, 2014

Excellent Care Physical Therapy PC v MVAIC (2014 NY Slip Op 50679(U))

Headnote

A provider sued MVAIC for assigned first-party no-fault benefits, and on the scheduled trial date the Civil Court entered a judgment of $3,689.53 for the provider after an untranscribed colloquy with counsel. The Appellate Term found no sworn testimony or documents in evidence and no indication that the parties submitted an agreed statement of facts. The trial court also failed to state findings of fact or conclusions as CPLR 4213(b) requires. Because of the inadequate record, the judgment was reversed and vacated and the matter was remitted for a trial de novo.

Reported in New York Official Reports at Excellent Care Physical Therapy PC v MVAIC (2014 NY Slip Op 50679(U))

[*1]
Excellent Care Physical Therapy PC v MVAIC
2014 NY Slip Op 50679(U) [43 Misc 3d 136(A)]
Decided on April 29, 2014
Appellate Term, First 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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 April 29, 2014
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, FIRST DEPARTMENT

PRESENT: Hunter, Jr., J.P., Lowe, III, Shulman, JJ
570032/14.

Excellent Care Physical Therapy PC, Lifex Medical Care PC, a/a/o Kenton Russell, Plaintiff-Respondent, – –

against

MVAIC, Defendant-Appellant.


Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Bronx County (Elizabeth A. Taylor, J.), entered April 4, 2013, in favor of plaintiff and awarding it damages in the principal sum of $3,689.53.


Per Curiam.

Judgment (Elizabeth A. Taylor, J.), entered April 4, 2013, reversed, without costs, judgment vacated and matter remanded for trial.

On the scheduled trial date of this first-party no-fault action, the court issued a judgment in plaintiff’s favor following an untranscribed colloquy with respective counsel. So far as shown, no sworn testimony was elicited and no documents were placed into evidence; nor is there any indication in the scant “record” produced below that the parties submitted the case for resolution on an agreed statement of facts pursuant to CPLR 3222(a). Compounding the problem, the court failed to articulate any findings of fact, reasoning or conclusions, in violation of CPLR 4213(b). Given the unsatisfactory state of the record, we are constrained to remand the matter for a trial de novo.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.
I concurI concurI concur
Decision Date: April 29, 2014