November 9, 2018
Active Care Med. Supply Corp. v Hartford Ins. Co. (2018 NY Slip Op 51590(U))
https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/active-care-med-supply-corp-v-hartford-ins-co-2018-ny-slip-op51590u/
- Decided
- November 9, 2018
- Citation
- 2018 NY Slip Op 51590(U) · 61 Misc 3d 139(A)
- Posture
- Summary judgment
- Outcome
- Insurer prevailed
- Issues
- Priority, other coverage
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 Active Care Med. Supply Corp. v Hartford Ins. Co. (2018 NY Slip Op 51590(U))
| Active Care Med. Supply Corp. v Hartford Ins. Co. |
| 2018 NY Slip Op 51590(U) [61 Misc 3d 139(A)] |
| Decided on November 9, 2018 |
| 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| This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 November 9, 2018
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 2d, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : MICHAEL L. PESCE, P.J., THOMAS P. ALIOTTA, DAVID ELLIOT, JJ
2016-158 K C
against
Hartford Insurance Company, Respondent.
The Rybak Firm, PLLC (Damin J. Toell of counsel), for appellant. The Law Office of Tobias & Kuhn (Marisa Villeda of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Richard J. Montelione, J.), entered December 17, 2015. The order granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and denied plaintiff’s cross motion for summary judgment.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with $25 costs.
In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Civil Court which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and denied plaintiff’s cross motion for summary judgment. The court found that defendant had established that there was no coverage for no-fault benefits because defendant had demonstrated that the Workers’ Compensation Board had awarded workers’ compensation benefits to plaintiff’s assignor for injuries she had sustained in the accident which gave rise to the claims at issue.
For the reasons stated in Active Care Med. Supply Corp., as Assignee of Holland, Monique v Hartford Ins. Co. (__ Misc 3d ___, 2018 NY Slip Op _____ [appeal No. 2016-189 K C], decided herewith), the order is affirmed.
PESCE, P.J., ALIOTTA and ELLIOT, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Paul Kenny
Chief Clerk
Decision Date: November 09, 2018
Similar decisions
- Active Care Med. Supply Corp. v American Tr. Ins. Co. (2018 NY Slip Op 50825(U))The insurer's motion for summary judgment dismissing the provider's complaint for assigned no-fault benefits was granted.
- Active Care Med. Supply Corp. v ELRAC, Inc. (2018 NY Slip Op 50826(U))The self-insurer established timely mailing of its denial, and the provider's remaining argument was raised for the first time on appeal.
- Active Care Med. Supply Corp v American Tr. Ins. Co. (2017 NY Slip Op 51902(U))The insurer's summary judgment dismissal for the provider's EUO nonappearance was affirmed.
- Active Care Med. Supply Corp. v MVAIC (2019 NY Slip Op 52058(U))MVAIC's summary judgment motion based on outstanding verification was denied, and the provider's cross motion for summary judgment was granted.
- Active Care Med. Supply Corp. v Global Liberty Ins. (2021 NY Slip Op 50257(U))The insurer obtained a new trial because the assignor's certified EUO transcript should have been considered on workers' compensation.