September 8, 2017

525 EVM, Inc. v GEICO Gen. Ins. Co. (2017 NY Slip Op 51153(U))

Headnote

The relevant facts the court considered were that 525 EVM, Inc., as the assignee of Dzianis Haiduk, was seeking to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits from GEICO General Insurance Company. The main issue was whether there were triable issues of fact regarding the summary judgment motion and cross-motion for summary judgment. The holding of the court was that the Civil Court properly denied both motions and found that there were triable issues of fact. The Appellate Term affirmed the decision, declining the plaintiff's request to limit the issues for trial. Therefore, the order was affirmed, and the case was allowed to proceed to trial.

Reported in New York Official Reports at 525 EVM, Inc. v GEICO Gen. Ins. Co. (2017 NY Slip Op 51153(U))

525 EVM, Inc. v GEICO Gen. Ins. Co. (2017 NY Slip Op 51153(U)) [*1]

525 EVM, Inc. v GEICO Gen. Ins. Co.

2017 NY Slip Op 51153(U) [57 Misc 3d 127(A)]

Decided on September 8, 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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 September 8, 2017

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

PRESENT: : MICHAEL L. PESCE, P.J., THOMAS P. ALIOTTA, MARTIN SOLOMON, JJ
2014-1926 K C

525 EVM, Inc., as Assignee of Dzianis Haiduk, Appellant,
against
GEICO General Insurance Company, Respondent.

Fuld & Karp, P.C. (Cheryl Scher, Esq.), for appellant. Law Office of Printz & Goldstein (Lawrence J. Chanice, Esq.), for respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Reginald A. Boddie, J.), entered June 2, 2014. The order, insofar as appealed from and as limited by the brief, upon denying plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, failed to find, pursuant to CPLR 3212 (g), that plaintiff had established certain facts for all purposes in the action.

ORDERED that the order, insofar as appealed from, is affirmed, with $25 costs.

In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, plaintiff moved for summary judgment and defendant cross-moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The Civil Court denied both motions, finding that there were triable issues of fact.

Plaintiff’s sole argument on appeal is that the Civil Court, upon denying plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, should have found, pursuant to CPLR 3212 (g), that plaintiff had established certain facts for all purposes in the action. As we decline plaintiff’s request to limit the issues for trial pursuant to CPLR 3212 (g) (see S & R Med., P.C. v GEICO Gen. Ins. Co., 52 Misc 3d 133[A], 2016 NY Slip Op 51013[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2016]), the order, insofar as appealed from, is affirmed.

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

Paul Kenny
Chief Clerk
Decision Date: September 08, 2017