• 347-746-6001
  • contact@beynensonlaw.com
Beynenson Law
Beynenson Law
  • Services
    • Search Case Law & Regulations
    • New Decisions
    • Decisions by Court
    • Legal Questions
    • No-Fault Regulations
    • Claim Process & Deadlines
    • Ask No-Fault AI
    • Arbitrator Scorecard
    • Award Volume
    • Arbitrator / Carrier Data
    • Provider / Carrier Data
    • Provider / Attorney Data
    • Arbitration Pro Extension
  • About Us
  • Contact
  • East Hampton, New York

  • 347-746-6001
  • contact@beynensonlaw.com
  • Services
    • Search Case Law & Regulations
    • New Decisions
    • Decisions by Court
    • Legal Questions
    • No-Fault Regulations
    • Claim Process & Deadlines
    • Ask No-Fault AI
    • Arbitrator Scorecard
    • Award Volume
    • Arbitrator / Carrier Data
    • Provider / Carrier Data
    • Provider / Attorney Data
    • Arbitration Pro Extension
  • About Us
  • Contact
November 3, 2017

S.J. Pahng, M.D., P.C. v AutoOne Ins. Co. (2017 NY Slip Op 51515(U))

https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/s-j-pahng-m-d-p-c-v-autoone-ins-co-2017-ny-slip-op-51515u/

Court
Appellate Term, Second Department
Decided
November 3, 2017
Citation
2017 NY Slip Op 51515(U) · 57 Misc 3d 149(A)
Posture
Other motion
Outcome
Insurer prevailed
Issues
Discovery and procedure
Cite as
S.J. Pahng, M.D., P.C. v AutoOne Ins. Co., 57 Misc 3d 149(A), 2017 NY Slip Op 51515(U) (App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2017)

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.

The insurer's motion to compel the provider to appear for an examination before trial was granted on appeal. The Appellate Term, Second Department, reversed the order, insofar as appealed from, and directed the examination for the reasons stated in the companion appeal decided the same day, No. 2014-2842 Q C.

Reported in New York Official Reports at S.J. Pahng, M.D., P.C. v AutoOne Ins. Co. (2017 NY Slip Op 51515(U))

[*1]
S.J. Pahng, M.D., P.C. v AutoOne Ins. Co.
2017 NY Slip Op 51515(U) [57 Misc 3d 149(A)]
Decided on November 3, 2017
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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 3, 2017
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 2d, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : MICHAEL L. PESCE, P.J., THOMAS P. ALIOTTA, MARTIN M. SOLOMON, JJ
2015-147 Q C

S.J. Pahng, M.D., P.C., as Assignee of Yasuo Kishida, Respondent,

against

AutoOne Insurance Company, Appellant.

Law Office of Jason Tenenbaum, P.C. (Jason Tenenbaum, Esq.), for appellant. Law Office of Richard W. Shin, for respondent (no brief filed).

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Jodi Orlow, J.), entered December 18, 2014. The order, insofar as appealed from as limited by the brief, denied the branch of defendant’s motion seeking to compel plaintiff to appear for an examination before trial.

ORDERED that the order, insofar as appealed from, is reversed, with $30 costs, the branch of defendant’s motion seeking to compel plaintiff to appear for an examination before trial is granted, and the examination shall be held within 60 days of the date of this decision and order, at such time and place to be specified in a written notice by defendant of not less than 10 days, or at such other time and place as the parties may agree upon.

In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, insofar as is relevant to this appeal, the Civil Court denied the branch of a motion by defendant seeking to compel plaintiff to appear for an examination before trial.

For the reasons stated in S.J. Pahng, M.D., P.C., as Assignee of Jin Hee Ma v AutoOne Ins. Co. (___ Misc 3d ___, 2017 NY Slip Op _____ [appeal No. 2014-2842 Q C], decided herewith), the order, insofar as appealed from, is reversed and the branch of defendant’s motion seeking to compel plaintiff to appear for an examination before trial is granted.

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


ENTER:
Paul Kenny
Chief Clerk
Decision Date: November 03, 2017

Similar decisions

  • Holtsville Chiropractic, P.C. v AutoOne Ins. Co. (2017 NY Slip Op 51516(U))The insurer's motion to compel a provider deposition and strike the notice of trial was granted on appeal.
  • Bay Plaza Chiropractic, P.C. v Auto One Ins. Co. (2018 NY Slip Op 51082(U))The insurer was entitled to a provider deposition on medical necessity, but a triable factual issue precluded summary judgment.
  • North Bronx Med. Health Care v Auto One Ins. Co. (2016 NY Slip Op 51625(U))The insurer was entitled to depose the treating doctor, but factual issues on medical necessity defeated summary judgment on both claims.
  • Prepetit Med., P.C. v Allstate Ins. Co. (2015 NY Slip Op 51879(U))The insurer's motion to compel the provider to appear for a deposition was granted and upheld on appeal.
  • S.J. Pahng, M.D., P.C. v Progressive Northeastern Ins. Co. (2008 NY Slip Op 51537(U))The provider's challenge to an allegedly inadequate judgment failed because unrebutted peer-review testimony established lack of medical necessity.
Beynenson Law

Tech-driven New York no-fault collections for healthcare providers.

About the firm

Contact

  • East Hampton, New York

  • 347-746-6001
  • contact@beynensonlaw.com
  • Contact form

Research

  • Search Case Law & Regulations
  • New Decisions
  • Decisions by Court
  • Legal Questions
  • No-Fault Regulations
  • Claim Process & Deadlines
  • Ask No-Fault AI

Arbitration Data

  • Arbitrator Scorecard
  • Award Volume
  • Arbitrator / Carrier Data
  • Provider / Carrier Data
  • Provider / Attorney Data
  • Arbitration Pro Extension

©2026 The Beynenson Law Group, PC. Terms of Use Privacy Policy

Site by khrystev.dev

Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. This website provides general information, not legal advice, and using it does not create an attorney-client relationship. Do not send confidential information through this site.