• 347-746-6001
  • contact@beynensonlaw.com
Beynenson Law
Beynenson Law
  • Services
    • Search
    • No-Fault AI
    • New Decisions
    • Legal Questions
    • No-Fault Regulations
    • 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
    • No-Fault AI
    • New Decisions
    • Legal Questions
    • No-Fault Regulations
    • Arbitrator Scorecard
    • Award Volume
    • Arbitrator / Carrier Data
    • Provider / Carrier Data
    • Provider / Attorney Data
    • Arbitration Pro Extension
  • About Us
  • Contact
May 18, 2015

Peace of Mind Social Work, P.C. v Travelers Ins. Co. (2015 NY Slip Op 50777(U))

https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/peace-of-mind-social-work-p-c-v-travelers-ins-co-2015-ny-slip-op50777u/

Court
Appellate Term, Second Department
Decided
May 18, 2015
Citation
2015 NY Slip Op 50777(U) · 47 Misc 3d 149(A)
Posture
Trial
Outcome
Provider prevailed
Issues
Provider's prima facie case Trial and evidence
Legal questions
Claimant's prima facie case at trial (see the maps)
Cite as
Peace of Mind Social Work, P.C. v Travelers Ins. Co., 47 Misc 3d 149(A), 2015 NY Slip Op 50777(U) (App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2015)

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 provider's third-party biller's testimony established its prima facie case despite the insurer's business-record-foundation objection. At a nonjury trial for assigned no-fault benefits, the biller was the sole witness, and the provider's claim forms were admitted into evidence. The insurer argued that the witness could not establish a foundation under CPLR 4518. Applying Viviane Etienne Med. Care, P.C. v Country-Wide Ins. Co., the Appellate Term, Second Department, found the testimony sufficient. Because the insurer offered no defense, the court affirmed the judgment for the provider entered by Civil Court, Kings County.

Reported in New York Official Reports at Peace of Mind Social Work, P.C. v Travelers Ins. Co. (2015 NY Slip Op 50777(U))

[*1]
Peace of Mind Social Work, P.C. v Travelers Ins. Co.
2015 NY Slip Op 50777(U) [47 Misc 3d 149(A)]
Decided on May 18, 2015
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 May 18, 2015

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


PRESENT: : PESCE, P.J., ALIOTTA and SOLOMON, JJ.
2012-2661 K C
Peace of Mind Social Work, P.C. as Assignee of SVETLANA YAKUBOVA, Respondent,

against

Travelers Ins. Co., Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Ingrid Joseph, J.), entered August 3, 2011. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $5,483.27.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, with $25 costs.

At a nonjury trial in this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, the sole witness was plaintiff’s third-party biller. Although defendant’s counsel argued that plaintiff had failed to establish its prima facie case—since the witness was incapable of establishing a business record foundation, pursuant to CPLR 4518, for plaintiff’s claim forms, which had been admitted into evidence—the Civil Court entered judgment in favor of plaintiff.

Pursuant to the holding in Viviane Etienne Med. Care, P.C. v Country-Wide Ins. Co. (114 AD3d 33 [2013]), the testimony of plaintiff’s witness was sufficient to establish plaintiff’s prima facie case. As defendant failed to proffer a defense, the judgment is affirmed (see id.; Peace of Mind, Social Work, P.C. v Travelers Aetna Prop. Cas. Corp., 43 Misc 3d 127[A], 2014 NY Slip Op 50475[U] [App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2014]).

Pesce, P.J., Aliotta and Solomon, JJ., concur.


Decision Date: May 18, 2015

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.

Claimant's prima facie case at trial

Open the full map

What must a no-fault claimant prove at trial to make out its prima facie case for overdue benefits?

This decision: Claimant's trial proof held to make out its prima facie case

Held the third-party biller's trial testimony established the provider's prima facie case, rejecting the insurer's argument that a CPLR 4518 business-record foundation for the claim forms was required.

  • Appellate DivisionApp Div 3
  • Appellate TermApp Term 64
  • Trial courtsTrial 36
2008, Appellate Division: 1 decision (1 Other element missing)2006, Appellate Division: 1 decision (1 Other element missing)2010, Appellate Division: 1 decision (1 Business-record foundation lacking)2019, Appellate Term: 12 decisions (1 Proof sufficient, 11 Other element missing)2016, Appellate Term: 6 decisions (2 Proof sufficient, 4 Other element missing)2015, Appellate Term: 3 decisions (2 Proof sufficient, 1 Other element missing)2014, Appellate Term: 3 decisions (2 Proof sufficient, 1 Other element missing)2013, Appellate Term: 8 decisions (4 Proof sufficient, 1 Mailing/receipt not shown, 1 Business-record foundation lacking, 2 Other element missing)2012, Appellate Term: 1 decision (1 Mailing/receipt not shown)2011, Appellate Term: 2 decisions (1 Overdue not shown, 1 Other element missing)2010, Appellate Term: 3 decisions (2 Proof sufficient, 1 Business-record foundation lacking)2009, Appellate Term: 11 decisions (1 Proof sufficient, 1 Overdue not shown, 9 Business-record foundation lacking)2008, Appellate Term: 1 decision (1 Business-record foundation lacking)2006, Appellate Term: 3 decisions (2 Proof sufficient, 1 Business-record foundation lacking)2007, Appellate Term: 1 decision (1 Business-record foundation lacking)2017, Appellate Term: 3 decisions (3 Other element missing)2018, Appellate Term: 3 decisions (3 Other element missing)2020, Appellate Term: 2 decisions (1 Proof sufficient, 1 Other element missing)2022, Appellate Term: 1 decision (1 Other element missing)2025, Appellate Term: 1 decision (1 Other element missing)2017, Trial courts: 1 decision (1 Proof sufficient)2015, Trial courts: 3 decisions (2 Proof sufficient, 1 Other element missing)2013, Trial courts: 2 decisions (1 Business-record foundation lacking, 1 Other element missing)2011, Trial courts: 1 decision (1 Mailing/receipt not shown)2010, Trial courts: 4 decisions (4 Proof sufficient)2008, Trial courts: 5 decisions (2 Proof sufficient, 1 Overdue not shown, 2 Business-record foundation lacking)2007, Trial courts: 2 decisions (1 Proof sufficient, 1 Business-record foundation lacking)2006, Trial courts: 9 decisions (6 Proof sufficient, 1 Mailing/receipt not shown, 1 Business-record foundation lacking, 1 Other element missing)2004, Trial courts: 5 decisions (4 Proof sufficient, 1 Business-record foundation lacking)2005, Trial courts: 1 decision (1 Proof sufficient)2009, Trial courts: 1 decision (1 Proof sufficient)2021, Trial courts: 1 decision (1 Proof sufficient)2022, Trial courts: 1 decision (1 Other element missing)This decision
20052010201520202025
Proof sufficientMailing/receipt not shownOverdue not shownBusiness-record foundation lackingOther element missingThis decisionCites it or cited by itCited or followed

Of the 103 decisions on this question in the Second Department courts and the Court of Appeals, 40 (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. (2013 NY Slip Op 08430) FollowedA provider need not prove a claim's merits for summary judgment where the insurer failed to timely and properly deny the claim.
  • Peace of Mind, Social Work, P.C. v Travelers Aetna Prop. Cas. Corp. (2014 NY Slip Op 50475(U))The provider's third-party biller's testimony was sufficient to establish its prima facie case at a nonjury trial.

Similar decisions

  • Peace of Mind, Social Work, P.C. v Travelers Prop. Cas. (2013 NY Slip Op 51119(U))The provider failed to establish its claim form's admissibility because its third-party witness did not lay a foundation for the source records.
  • Empire State Psychological Servs., P.C. v Travelers Ins. Co. (2006 NY Slip Op 51869(U))The provider failed to prove its prima facie case at trial by offering only the insurer's interrogatory response acknowledging bills.
  • V.S. Med. Servs., P.C. v Travelers Ins. Co. (2013 NY Slip Op 50973(U))The provider failed to identify the claims sued upon or prove they remained unpaid, so it did not establish a prima facie case at trial.
  • Peace of Mind, Social Work, P.C. v MVAIC (2011 NY Slip Op 51834(U))The provider failed to establish its prima facie case at trial because it offered no proof of submitting a notice of intention to claim to MVAIC. Its billing witness testified only to creation and mailing of the claim form and nonpayment.
  • Psychmetrics Med., P.C. v Travelers Ins. Co. (2008 NY Slip Op 52466(U))The provider failed to establish its prima facie case at trial because it called no witness to authenticate its claim form as a business record.
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

Case Law

  • Search
  • No-Fault AI
  • New Decisions
  • Legal Questions
  • No-Fault Regulations

Arbitration Data

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

©2026 The Beynenson Law Firm, 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.