September 15, 2016

Charles Deng Acupuncture, P.C. v Farmington Cas. Co. (2016 NY Slip Op 51326(U))

Headnote

A provider sued for assigned first-party no-fault benefits and the Civil Court granted the insurer summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The insurer's proof established that the denial of claim forms had been timely mailed. It also showed that the insurer had fully paid plaintiff for the services in accordance with the workers' compensation fee schedule. The Appellate Term affirmed.

Reported in New York Official Reports at Charles Deng Acupuncture, P.C. v Farmington Cas. Co. (2016 NY Slip Op 51326(U))

[*1]
Charles Deng Acupuncture, P.C. v Farmington Cas. Co.
2016 NY Slip Op 51326(U) [53 Misc 3d 128(A)]
Decided on September 15, 2016
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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 September 15, 2016
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 2d, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS

PRESENT: : PESCE, P.J., ALIOTTA and SOLOMON, JJ.
2014-512 Q C

Charles Deng Acupuncture, P.C., as Assignee of Nina Amin, Appellant,

against

Farmington Casualty Company, Respondent.


Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Jodi Orlow, J.), entered February 4, 2014. The order granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

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.

Contrary to plaintiff’s arguments on appeal, the proof submitted by defendant established that the denial of claim forms had been timely mailed (see St. Vincent’s Hosp. of Richmond v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 50 AD3d 1123 [2008]), and that defendant had fully paid plaintiff for the services at issue in accordance with the workers’ compensation fee schedule.

Accordingly, the order is affirmed.

Pesce, P.J., Aliotta and Solomon, JJ., concur.


Decision Date: September 15, 2016