November 9, 2018

Active Care Med. Supply Corp. v Hartford Ins. Co. (2018 NY Slip Op 51590(U))

Headnote

The court considered the facts that the defendant had been awarded workers' compensation benefits for injuries sustained in an accident. The main issue decided was whether the defendant was entitled to coverage for no-fault benefits, given the workers' compensation award. The holding of the court was that the defendant had demonstrated there was no coverage for no-fault benefits due to the workers' compensation award, and therefore affirmed the dismissal of the complaint and denial of the plaintiff's cross motion for summary judgment.

Reported in New York Official Reports at Active Care Med. Supply Corp. v Hartford Ins. Co. (2018 NY Slip Op 51590(U))

Active Care Med. Supply Corp. v Hartford Ins. Co. (2018 NY Slip Op 51590(U)) [*1]

Active Care Med. Supply Corp. v Hartford Ins. Co.

2018 NY Slip Op 51590(U) [61 Misc 3d 139(A)]

Decided on November 9, 2018

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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 November 9, 2018

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

PRESENT: : MICHAEL L. PESCE, P.J., THOMAS P. ALIOTTA, DAVID ELLIOT, JJ
2016-158 K C

Active Care Medical Supply Corp., as Assignee of Aquino, Gertrudis, Appellant,
against
Hartford Insurance Company, Respondent.

The Rybak Firm, PLLC (Damin J. Toell of counsel), for appellant. The Law Office of Tobias & Kuhn (Marisa Villeda of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Richard J. Montelione, J.), entered December 17, 2015. The order granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and denied plaintiff’s cross motion for summary judgment.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with $25 costs.

In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Civil Court which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and denied plaintiff’s cross motion for summary judgment. The court found that defendant had established that there was no coverage for no-fault benefits because defendant had demonstrated that the Workers’ Compensation Board had awarded workers’ compensation benefits to plaintiff’s assignor for injuries she had sustained in the accident which gave rise to the claims at issue.

For the reasons stated in Active Care Med. Supply Corp., as Assignee of Holland, Monique v Hartford Ins. Co. (__ Misc 3d ___, 2018 NY Slip Op _____ [appeal No. 2016-189 K C], decided herewith), the order is affirmed.

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

ENTER:
Paul Kenny
Chief Clerk
Decision Date: November 09, 2018