April 29, 2009

A Plus Med., P.C. v Mercury Cas. Co. (2009 NY Slip Op 50824(U))

Headnote

The insurer's motion for summary judgment dismissing the provider's no-fault complaint on medical-necessity grounds was denied. The Appellate Term, First Department, affirmed because the insurer's submissions did not conclusively establish its defense of lack of medical necessity as a matter of law.

Reported in New York Official Reports at A Plus Med., P.C. v Mercury Cas. Co. (2009 NY Slip Op 50824(U))

[*1]
A Plus Med., P.C. v Mercury Cas. Co.
2009 NY Slip Op 50824(U) [23 Misc 3d 136(A)]
Decided on April 29, 2009
Appellate Term, First 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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 April 29, 2009
APPELLATE TERM OF THE SUPREME COURT, FIRST DEPARTMENT

PRESENT: McKeon, P.J., Schoenfeld, Heitler, JJ
570671/08.

A Plus Medical, P.C. a/a/o John James, Plaintiff-Respondent, – –

against

Mercury Casualty Company, Defendant-Appellant.


Defendant appeals from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Bronx County (Ben R. Barbato, J.), entered August 8, 2008, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.


Per Curiam.

Order (Ben R. Barbato, J.), entered August 8, 2008, affirmed, with $10 costs.

We sustain the denial of defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissal of the complaint in this no-fault first party benefits case, since defendant’s submissions did not conclusively establish as a matter of law its defense of lack of medical necessity.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.
I concurI concurI concur

Similar decisions