December 6, 2019

Quality Health Supply Corp. v Amica Mut. Ins. Co. (2019 NY Slip Op 51969(U))

https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/quality-health-supply-corp-v-amica-mut-ins-co-2019-ny-slip-op51969u/

Court: Appellate Term, Second Department
Decided: December 6, 2019
Citation: 2019 NY Slip Op 51969(U) · 65 Misc 3d 157(A)
Posture: Summary judgment
Later treatment: Followed in 1 later decision (see Cited by)
Issues: Discovery and procedure

Cite as

Quality Health Supply Corp. v Amica Mut. Ins. Co., 65 Misc 3d 157(A), 2019 NY Slip Op 51969(U) (App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2019)

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.

An order that fails to decide a branch of a motion does not permit an appeal from that omission. The insurer sought summary judgment based on nonreceipt of claims and exhaustion of policy limits. The Civil Court denied the nonreceipt branch and the provider's cross motion, finding a factual dispute over receipt, but did not address exhaustion. The insurer's sole appellate argument challenged that omission. The Appellate Term, Second Department, dismissed the appeal because the exhaustion branch remained pending and undecided; it did not determine whether the policy limits had been exhausted.

Reported in New York Official Reports at Quality Health Supply Corp. v Amica Mut. Ins. Co. (2019 NY Slip Op 51969(U))

[*1]

Quality Health Supply Corp. v Amica Mut. Ins. Co.

2019 NY Slip Op 51969(U) [65 Misc 3d 157(A)]

Decided on December 6, 2019

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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 December 6, 2019

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

PRESENT: : MICHAEL L. PESCE, P.J., THOMAS P. ALIOTTA, BERNICE D. SIEGAL, JJ
2018-983 K C

Quality Health Supply Corp., as Assignee of Evertz, Shea, Respondent,
against
Amica Mutual Ins. Co., Appellant.

Lawrence N. Rogak, LLC (Lawrence N. Rogak of counsel), for appellant. The Rybak Firm, PLLC (Damin J. Toell of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Odessa Kennedy, J.), entered January 11, 2018. The order, insofar as appealed from as limited by the brief, failed to decide the branch of defendant’s motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the coverage limits of the insurance policy had been exhausted.

ORDERED that the appeal is dismissed.

In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, defendant moved for summary judgment on the grounds that it never received the claims at issue and that the coverage limits available under the insurance policy had already been exhausted. Plaintiff cross-moved for summary judgment. By order entered January 11, 2018, the Civil Court denied both the branch of defendant’s motion seeking summary judgment on the ground that defendant had never received the claims at issue, and plaintiff’s cross motion, stating that there was an issue of fact with respect to defendant’s defense that it had not received the claims at issue.

Defendant’s sole argument on appeal is that the Civil Court erred in failing to decide the branch of defendant’s motion which sought summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the coverage limits available under the subject insurance policy had already been [*2]exhausted. However, no appeal lies from an order or portion thereof which fails to determine a motion or branch thereof (see Baez v First Liberty Ins. Corp., 95 AD3d 1250 [2012]). Thus, the branch of defendant’s motion which was not addressed by the Civil Court remains pending and undecided (see Fanelli v J.C. Millbank Constr. Co., Inc., 91 AD3d 703 [2012]; Katz v Katz, 68 AD2d 536, 542-543 [1979]).

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

PESCE, P.J., ALIOTTA and SIEGAL, JJ., concur.

ENTER:
Paul Kenny
Chief Clerk
Decision Date: December 6, 2019

Cited by

A label shows how the later decision treated this one.

PDG Psychological, P.C. v State Farm Mut. Ins. Co. (2021 NY Slip Op 50719(U)) FollowedAn order that leaves a motion branch undecided is not appealable as to that branch.

Similar decisions

Quality Custom Med. Supply, Inc. v American Country Ins. Co. (2019 NY Slip Op 51165(U))The insurer's peer review established lack of medical necessity, and the provider submitted no medical evidence rebutting its conclusions.
Quality Health Prods. v Country-Wide Ins. Co. (2012 NY Slip Op 51641(U))The provider's action was premature because timely verification requests remained unanswered when the action began.
Active Care Med. Supply Corp. v Amica Mut. Ins. Co. (2018 NY Slip Op 50500(U))The insurer failed to establish res judicata, but its proof of bill nonreceipt defeated the provider's summary judgment cross motion.
JPC Med., P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (2022 NY Slip Op 50562(U))The insurer failed to establish policy exhaustion because its claim specialist did not lay a sufficient foundation for the payment log.
Active Care Med. Supply Corp. v Farmington Cas. Co. (2019 NY Slip Op 50987(U))The provider's second and third causes of action were premature because requested wholesale invoices remained outstanding.