July 9, 2007

Bronx Advanced Med., P.C. v Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. (2007 NY Slip Op 51334(U))

Headnote

The court considered the facts of the case, which involved an action to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits. The main issue decided was whether the alleged injury arose out of an insured incident. The court held that defendant's submissions in opposition to plaintiff's motion for summary judgment raised triable issues of fact as to whether the injury did not arise out of an insured incident, and thus, plaintiff's motion for summary judgment should have been denied. Therefore, the court reversed the order granting plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and remanded the matter for further proceedings.

Reported in New York Official Reports at Bronx Advanced Med., P.C. v Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. (2007 NY Slip Op 51334(U))

Bronx Advanced Med., P.C. v Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. (2007 NY Slip Op 51334(U)) [*1]

Bronx Advanced Med., P.C. v Liberty Mut. Ins. Co.

2007 NY Slip Op 51334(U) [16 Misc 3d 130(A)]

Decided on July 9, 2007

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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 July 9, 2007

APPELLATE TERM OF THE SUPREME COURT, FIRST DEPARTMENT

PRESENT: McKEON, P.J., DAVIS, KLEIN HEITLER, JJ
570548/06.

Bronx Advanced Medical, P.C. a/a/o Joshua Gomez Plaintiff-Respondent, – –
against
Liberty Mutual Insurance Company,07-097 Defendant-Appellant.

Defendant appeals from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Bronx County (Francis Alessandro, J.), entered January 25, 2006, which granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in the principal amount of $4,126.93.

Per Curiam.

Order (Francis Alessandro, J.), entered January 25, 2006, reversed, with $10 costs, motion denied, and matter remanded for further proceedings.

In this action to recover assigned first party no-fault benefits, defendant’s submissions in opposition to plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment sufficed to raise triable issues of fact as to whether the “alleged injury [did] not arise out of an insured incident” (Central Gen. Hosp. v Chubb Group of Ins. Cos., 90 NY2d 195, 199 [1997]). Thus, plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment should have been denied.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.
I concurI concurI concur
Decision Date: July 9, 2007