September 15, 2016

DAC Medical, P.C./Timothy Mosomillo, D.O. v Allstate Ins. Co. (2016 NY Slip Op 51322(U))

Headnote

The relevant facts considered by the court were that DAC Medical, P.C./Timothy Mosomillo, D.O. was seeking to recover first-party no-fault benefits from Allstate Insurance Company. The main issue decided was whether there was a triable issue of fact regarding the medical necessity of the services at issue. The court held that there was a triable issue of fact regarding the medical necessity of the services at issue and affirmed the order denying plaintiff's motion for summary judgment. The decision was made by the Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Department, with Pesce, P.J., Aliotta and Solomon, JJ., concurring.

Reported in New York Official Reports at DAC Medical, P.C./Timothy Mosomillo, D.O. v Allstate Ins. Co. (2016 NY Slip Op 51322(U))

DAC Medical, P.C./Timothy Mosomillo, D.O. v Allstate Ins. Co. (2016 NY Slip Op 51322(U)) [*1]

DAC Medical, P.C./Timothy Mosomillo, D.O. v Allstate Ins. Co.

2016 NY Slip Op 51322(U) [53 Misc 3d 127(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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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.
2014-421 Q C

DAC Medical, P.C./Timothy Mosomillo, D.O., as Assignee of Nancy Cirillo, Appellant,
against
Allstate Insurance Company, Respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (William A. Viscovich, J.), entered January 24, 2014. The order, insofar as appealed from, denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment.

ORDERED that the order, insofar as appealed from, is affirmed, with $25 costs.

In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Civil Court as denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment.

Upon a review of the record, we agree with the Civil Court’s determination that there is a triable issue of fact regarding the medical necessity of the services at issue (see Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557 [1980]).

Accordingly, the order, insofar as appealed from, is affirmed.

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

Decision Date: September 15, 2016