June 4, 2004

A.B. Med. Servs. Pllc v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (2004 NY Slip Op 50575(U))

Headnote

The relevant facts of the case include that the plaintiffs were seeking to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits and the defendant submitted an affidavit from an investigator employed within defendant's Special Investigations Unit. The main issue at hand was whether there was a lack of coverage because the alleged injuries did not arise from an insured incident. The court found that the investigator's detailed affidavit set forth ample facts and founded beliefs to establish the existence of a triable issue of fact, therefore denying plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment. The holding of the case was that the denial of plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment was affirmed, and plaintiffs' remaining contentions were also considered lacking in merit.

Reported in New York Official Reports at A.B. Med. Servs. Pllc v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (2004 NY Slip Op 50575(U))

A.B. Med. Servs. Pllc v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (2004 NY Slip Op 50575(U)) [*1]

A.B. Med. Servs. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.

2004 NY Slip Op 50575(U)

Decided on June 4, 2004

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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 June 4, 2004

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

APPELLATE TERM : 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS

PRESENT:McCABE, P.J., RUDOLPH and ANGIOLILLO, JJ.
NO. 2003-1088 N C

A.B. MEDICAL SERVICES PLLC D.A.V. CHIROPRACTIC P.C. SOMUN ACUPUNCTURE P.C. a/a/o Junior Joseph Lionel Marius Rohan Pinnach, Appellants,
against
STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Repondent.

Appeal by plaintiffs from an order of the District Court, Nassau County (J. Spinola, J.), entered May 19, 2003, which denied their motion for summary judgment.

Order unanimously affirmed with $10 costs.

Plaintiffs commenced the instant action to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits. In opposition to plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, defendant submitted an affidavit from an investigator employed within defendant’s Special Investigations Unit. Contrary to plaintiffs’ contention, the investigator’s detailed affidavit set forth ample facts and founded beliefs to establish the existence of a triable issue of fact as to whether there was a lack of coverage because the alleged injuries did not arise from an insured incident (see Central Gen. Hosp. v Chubb Group of Ins. Cos., 90 NY2d 195, 199 [1997]). As a result, plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment was properly denied.

Plaintiffs’ remaining contentions are also lacking in merit.
Decision Date: June 04, 2004