October 25, 2019
Lidas Med. Supply, Inc. v Global Liberty Ins. (2019 NY Slip Op 51733(U))
https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/lidas-med-supply-inc-v-global-liberty-ins-2019-ny-slip-op-51733u/
- Decided
- October 25, 2019
- Citation
- 2019 NY Slip Op 51733(U) · 65 Misc 3d 143(A)
- Posture
- Summary judgment
- Outcome
- Insurer prevailed
- Legal questions
- Claimant's prima facie case on motions (see the maps)
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.
Reported in New York Official Reports at Lidas Med. Supply, Inc. v Global Liberty Ins. (2019 NY Slip Op 51733(U))
| Lidas Med. Supply, Inc. v Global Liberty Ins. |
| 2019 NY Slip Op 51733(U) [65 Misc 3d 143(A)] |
| Decided on October 25, 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| This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 October 25, 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
2017-1946 K C
against
Global Liberty Insurance, Appellant.
Law Office of Jason Tenenbaum, P.C. (Jason Tenenbaum of counsel), for appellant. Law Office of John Gallagher, PLLC, for respondent (no brief filed).
Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Andrew Borrok, J.), entered July 5, 2017. The order granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment.
ORDERED that the order is reversed, with $30 costs, and plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is denied.
In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, defendant appeals from an order of the Civil Court which granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment.
Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment should have been denied, as the proof submitted by plaintiff failed to establish that the claim had not been timely denied (see Viviane Etienne Med. Care, P.C. v Country-Wide Ins. Co., 25 NY3d 498 [2015]), or that defendant had issued a timely denial of claim form that was conclusory, vague or without merit as a matter of law (see Westchester Med. Ctr. v Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 78 AD3d 1168 [2010]; Ave T MPC Corp. v Auto One Ins. Co., 32 Misc 3d 128[A], 2011 NY Slip Op 51292[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2011]). In light of the foregoing, we reach no other issue.
Accordingly, the order is reversed and plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is denied.
PESCE, P.J., ALIOTTA and SIEGAL, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Paul Kenny
Chief Clerk
Decision Date: October 25, 2019
Legal questions
A question of no-fault law this decision rules on, from our Legal Questions pages. Bars count the decisions on the question by year and court, coloured by category; circles are this decision and the decisions on the question it cites or that cite it. Point at a bar or circle for details. The categories and summaries are Beynenson Law’s classification, made by a language model and checked by a second reading.
On summary judgment or another pretrial motion, what must a no-fault claimant show to establish its prima facie case?
This decision: Insufficient: claimant did not prove the claim was overdue (not paid or timely denied)
Held the claimant's motion should have been denied because its proof did not establish that the claim had not been timely denied or that a timely denial was conclusory, vague or without merit.
Of the 1,065 decisions on this question in the Second Department courts and the Court of Appeals, 247 (this one included) are in the same category.
Cited in this decision
A label shows how this decision treated the case it cites.
- Viviane Etienne Med. Care, P.C. v Country-Wide Ins. Co. (2015 NY Slip Op 04787) FollowedA provider establishes entitlement to summary judgment on overdue no-fault claims with admissible proof of mailing and receipt of statutory claim forms.
- Westchester Med. Ctr. v Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. (2010 NY Slip Op 08933)The provider failed to establish entitlement to summary judgment because the insurer partially paid and denied the claim within 30 days.
- Ave T MPC Corp. v Auto One Ins. Co. (2011 NY Slip Op 51292(U))The provider failed to establish summary judgment entitlement because nonpayment alone did not show an absent or legally insufficient denial.
Similar decisions
- Lida’s Med. Supply, Inc. v Global Liberty Ins. (2019 NY Slip Op 51691(U))The provider's summary judgment motion was denied because it failed to establish untimely denial or a legally insufficient timely denial.
- Lida’s Med. Supply, Inc. v Hereford Ins. Co. (2019 NY Slip Op 51356(U))The provider failed to establish entitlement to payment, and the insurer failed to establish timely mailing of its follow-up IME letter.
- Lida’s Med. Supply, Inc. v American Ind. Ins. Co. (2019 NY Slip Op 50502(U))The insurer's motion to dismiss the provider's no-fault complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction was granted on appeal.
- Longevity Med. Supply, Inc. v Global Liberty Ins. Co. (2020 NY Slip Op 50527(U))The insurer was awarded summary judgment based on a declaratory judgment barring no-fault benefits for the accident.
- Medcare Supply, Inc. v Global Liberty Ins. (2020 NY Slip Op 50231(U))The insurer established timely mailing of IME notices and the denial, and the assignor's failure to attend the scheduled IMEs. The provider had obtained summary judgment in its assigned no-fault benefits action, while Civil Court denied the insurer's cross motion asserting the IME no-show defense.