October 20, 2006

Accurate Med., P.C. v Travelers Ins. Co. (2006 NY Slip Op 51998(U))

Headnote

The relevant facts considered by the court in Accurate Med., P.C. v Travelers Insurance Co. were that the defendant had served the plaintiff with a notice of deposition and written discovery demands in August 2004, yet did not object to the plaintiff's written interrogatories, nor did they conduct the plaintiff's deposition. Plaintiff then filed a notice of trial in April 2006. The main issue decided was whether the defendant's failure to object to plaintiff's written interrogatories and conduct their deposition, despite being served with a notice of deposition and discovery demands, warranted vacating the notice of trial. The holding of the case was that the motion to vacate the notice of trial was properly denied, as defendant failed to show the need to conduct a deposition. Therefore, the decision and order of the court was to affirm the denial of the motion to vacate the notice of trial.

Reported in New York Official Reports at Accurate Med., P.C. v Travelers Ins. Co. (2006 NY Slip Op 51998(U))

Accurate Med., P.C. v Travelers Ins. Co. (2006 NY Slip Op 51998(U)) [*1]

Accurate Med., P.C. v Travelers Ins. Co.

2006 NY Slip Op 51998(U) [13 Misc 3d 133(A)]

Decided on October 20, 2006

Appellate Term, First Department

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

As corrected in part through October 23, 2006; it will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on October 20, 2006

APPELLATE TERM OF THE SUPREME COURT, FIRST DEPARTMENT

PRESENT: McCOOE, J.P., DAVIS, SCHOENFELD, JJ
.

Accurate Medical, P.C. a/a/o Hoe Dong Kwak, Plaintiff-Respondent,
against
Travelers Insurance Co., Defendant-Appellant.

Defendant appeals from an order of the Civil Court, Bronx County (Fernando Tapia, J.), entered May 17, 2006, which denied its motion to vacate the notice of trial and statement of readiness.

PER CURIAM:

Order (Fernando Tapia, J.), entered May 17, 2006, affirmed, with $10 costs.

In this action seeking recovery of no-fault benefits totaling $1,118.58, the record reveals that defendant served plaintiff with a notice of deposition and written discovery demands in August 2004. Defendant did not object to plaintiff’s written interrogatories nor did it avail itself of the opportunity to conduct plaintiff’s deposition prior to plaintiff filing a notice of trial in April 2006. Under these circumstances, and in view of defendant’s failure to show the need to conduct a deposition, the motion to vacate the notice of trial was properly denied.

This constitutes the decision and order of the court.
I concurI concurI concur
Decision Date: October 20, 2006