April 6, 2011

Alev Med. Supply, Inc. v Progressive N. Ins. Co. (2011 NY Slip Op 50624(U))

https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/alev-med-supply-inc-v-progressive-n-ins-co-2011-ny-slip-op50624u/

Court
Appellate Term, Second Department
Decided
April 6, 2011
Citation
2011 NY Slip Op 50624(U) · 31 Misc 3d 134(A)
Posture
Other motion
Outcome
Insurer prevailed
Issues
Discovery and procedure
Cite as
Alev Med. Supply, Inc. v Progressive N. Ins. Co., 31 Misc 3d 134(A), 2011 NY Slip Op 50624(U) (App Term, 2d Dept, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2011)

Posture, outcome, issues and treatment by other decisions are Beynenson Law’s classification. Treatment labels are assigned by a language model reading the citing decision; negative and appeal-history labels are checked by a second reader.

Summary

Editorial summary by Beynenson Law, not part of the court’s decision.

The provider's motion to strike the insurer's demand for a trial de novo after mandatory arbitration was denied. The provider argued under 22 NYCRR 28.12 (a) that counsel's appearance without evidentiary submissions or the doctor amounted to a default. The Appellate Term, Second Department, affirmed, citing B.Y., M.D., P.C. v Geico Indem. Co.

Reported in New York Official Reports at Alev Med. Supply, Inc. v Progressive N. Ins. Co. (2011 NY Slip Op 50624(U))

[*1]
Alev Med. Supply, Inc. v Progressive N. Ins. Co.
2011 NY Slip Op 50624(U) [31 Misc 3d 134(A)]
Decided on April 6, 2011
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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 April 6, 2011

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

APPELLATE TERM: 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS


PRESENT: : TANENBAUM, J.P., MOLIA and LaCAVA, JJ
.
ALEV MEDICAL SUPPLY, INC. as Assignee of JAVON BATTEY, Appellant, NO~ 2010-914 N C

against

PROGRESSIVE NORTHERN INSURANCE COMPANY, Respondent.

Appeal from an order of the District Court of Nassau County, Third District (Fred J. Hirsh, J.), dated March 22, 2010. The order denied plaintiff’s motion to strike defendant’s demand for a trial de novo.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs.

In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, the parties participated in a mandatory arbitration proceeding (see Rules of the Chief Judge [22 NYCRR] part 28). Following the arbitration hearing, the arbitrator found in favor of plaintiff. Thereafter, defendant timely served and filed a demand for a trial de novo (see Rules of the Chief Judge [22 NYCRR] § 28.12). Plaintiff moved to strike the demand, asserting that, while defense counsel had appeared at the arbitration hearing, that appearance was tantamount to a default since defendant had attempted to establish its defense of lack of medical necessity through non-evidentiary submissions of counsel, and had not produced its doctor to testify. As a result, plaintiff contended, defendant was not entitled to demand a trial de novo (see Rules of the Chief Judge [22 NYCRR] § 28.12 [a]). The District Court denied plaintiff’s motion to strike defendant’s demand for a trial de novo, and this appeal by plaintiff ensued.

The order is affirmed (see B.Y., M.D., P.C. v Geico Indem. Co., 30 Misc 3d 132[A], 2011 NY Slip Op 50036[U] [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2011]).

Tanenbaum, J.P., Molia and LaCava, JJ., concur. [*2]
Decision Date: April 06, 2011

Similar decisions