February 5, 2010
A.B. Med. Servs., PLLC v Geico Cas. Ins. Co. (2010 NY Slip Op 50224(U))
https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/a-b-med-servs-pllc-v-geico-cas-ins-co-2010-ny-slip-op-50224u/
- Decided
- February 5, 2010
- Citation
- 2010 NY Slip Op 50224(U) · 26 Misc 3d 138(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 A.B. Med. Servs., PLLC v Geico Cas. Ins. Co. (2010 NY Slip Op 50224(U))
| A.B. Med. Servs., PLLC v Geico Cas. Ins. Co. |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 50224(U) [26 Misc 3d 138(A)] |
| Decided on February 5, 2010 |
| 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| This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports. |
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
APPELLATE TERM: 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : NICOLAI, P.J., MOLIA and IANNACCI, JJ
2009-950 N C.
against
Geico Casualty Insurance Co., Respondent.
Appeal from an order of the District Court of Nassau County, Third District (Robert A. Bruno, J.), dated March 6, 2009. The order, insofar as appealed from, upon granting plaintiff’s motion for leave to reargue the branch of plaintiff’s prior motion which sought to limit the issues to be tried pursuant to CPLR 3212 (g), denied that branch of plaintiff’s prior motion.
ORDERED that the order, insofar as appealed from, is affirmed without costs.
In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, plaintiff moved for summary judgment or, in the alternative, for an order pursuant to CPLR 3212 (g) limiting issues of fact for trial. Defendant submitted opposition papers. The District Court denied the branch of plaintiff’s motion seeking summary judgment. Thereafter, plaintiff moved for leave to reargue, asserting that the court had not rendered a decision with regard to the branch of its motion which sought an order pursuant to CPLR 3212 (g) limiting issues of fact for trial. Defendant submitted opposition papers, and the District Court granted leave to reargue and, upon reargument, denied the branch of plaintiff’s motion which sought an order pursuant to CPLR 3212 (g) limiting issues of fact for trial. The instant appeal by plaintiff ensued.
Upon a review of the record, we find that plaintiff failed to make a prima facie showing of its entitlement to summary judgment, as the affidavit of its billing manager failed to establish that the documents annexed to plaintiff’s moving papers were admissible pursuant to CPLR 4518 (see Art of Healing Medicine, P.C. v Travelers Home & Mar. Ins. Co., 55 AD3d 644 [2008]; Fortune Med., P.C. v Allstate Ins. Co., 14 Misc 3d 136[A], 2007 NY Slip Op 50243[U] [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2007]). Consequently, we find no basis to disturb the District Court’s denial of the branch of plaintiff’s motion seeking a determination pursuant to CPLR 3212 (g) that plaintiff had, inter alia, established its prima facie case.
Accordingly, the order, insofar as appealed from, is affirmed.
Nicolai, P.J., Molia and Iannacci, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: February 05, 2010
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: claim forms not shown admissible as business records / merits of claim not proved
Upheld denial of a CPLR 3212 (g) order deeming the prima facie case established because the billing manager's affidavit did not establish the annexed documents were admissible under CPLR 4518.
Of the 1,063 decisions on this question in the Second Department courts and the Court of Appeals, 208 (this one included) are in the same category.
Cited in this decision
A label shows how this decision treated the case it cites.
- Art of Healing Medicine, P.C. v Travelers Home & Mar. Ins. Co. (2008 NY Slip Op 07846) FollowedThe providers failed to establish a prima facie case because they did not demonstrate the admissibility of their billing records.
- Fortune Med., P.C. v Allstate Ins. Co. (2007 NY Slip Op 50243(U)) FollowedAn insurer's acknowledgment of claim receipt does not concede the admissibility of the claim forms or the facts they contain.
Similar decisions
- A.B. Med., PLLC v GEICO (2013 NY Slip Op 50203(U))The provider failed to establish that the insurer's denials were untimely or without merit as a matter of law.
- A.B. Med. Servs., PLLC v Country-Wide Ins. Co. (2009 NY Slip Op 51130(U))The providers' medical biller failed to establish admissibility of the supporting documents, defeating their motion for summary judgment.
- A.B. Med. Servs., PLLC v American Tr. Ins. Co. (2009 NY Slip Op 51261(U))The providers failed to establish a prima facie case because their billing manager's affidavit did not establish admissible business records.
- New York Diagnostic Med. Care, P.C. v Geico Cas. Ins. Co. (2012 NY Slip Op 50681(U))Timeliness under the 45-day claim-submission requirement turns on the provider's submission date, rather than the insurer's receipt date.
- RLC Med., P.C. v Allstate Ins. Co. (2009 NY Slip Op 51131(U))The provider's billing manager failed to establish admissible business records, defeating the provider's motion for summary judgment.