April 27, 2017

Dynasty Med. Care, P.C. v 21st Century Advantage Ins. Co. (2017 NY Slip Op 50597(U))

Headnote

The court considered the fact that Dynasty Medical Care, P.C. was seeking to recover first-party no-fault benefits from 21st Century Advantage Insurance Company. The insurance company had paid the medical care provider for the services at issue based on the workers' compensation fee schedule. The main issue decided was whether the insurance company had properly applied the fee schedule and whether the medical care provider had raised a triable issue of fact in this regard. The court held that the insurance company had sufficiently demonstrated that it had properly applied the fee schedule, and that the medical care provider had failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Therefore, the amended order granting the insurance company's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint was affirmed.

Reported in New York Official Reports at Dynasty Med. Care, P.C. v 21st Century Advantage Ins. Co. (2017 NY Slip Op 50597(U))

Dynasty Med. Care, P.C. v 21st Century Advantage Ins. Co. (2017 NY Slip Op 50597(U)) [*1]

Dynasty Med. Care, P.C. v 21st Century Advantage Ins. Co.

2017 NY Slip Op 50597(U) [55 Misc 3d 141(A)]

Decided on April 27, 2017

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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 27, 2017

SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS

PRESENT: : ANTHONY MARANO, P.J., JERRY GARGUILO, JAMES V. BRANDS, JJ.
2016-318 S C

Dynasty Medical Care, P.C., as Assignee of Leonel Raoul, Appellant,
against
21st Century Advantage Insurance Company, Respondent.

Gabriel & Shapiro, LLC (Steven F. Palumbo, Esq.), for appellant. Law Office of Bryan M. Rothenberg (Deepak D. Sohi, Esq.), for respondent.

Appeal from an amended order of the District Court of Suffolk County, Third District (C. Stephen Hackeling, J.), dated January 21, 2016. The amended order granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

ORDERED that, on the court’s own motion, the notice of appeal from an order dated December 23, 2015 is deemed a premature notice of appeal from the amended order dated January 21, 2016 (see CPLR 5520 [c]); and it is further,

ORDERED that the amended order is affirmed, without costs.

In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, arguing that it had paid plaintiff for the services at issue in accordance with the workers’ compensation fee schedule. The District Court granted defendant’s motion. Contrary to plaintiff’s contention, defendant sufficiently demonstrated, prima facie, that it had properly applied the fee schedule and plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact with respect thereto (see Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557 [1980]).

Accordingly, the amended order is affirmed.

Marano, P.J., Garguilo and Brands, JJ., concur.

Decision Date: April 27, 2017