December 8, 2017

Elena Ocher Med., P.C. v Infinity Ins. Co. (2017 NY Slip Op 51730(U))

Headnote

The court considered the denial of the defendant's motion for summary judgment in a case brought by a medical provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits. The main issue decided was whether the services at issue were medically necessary, and the court found that there was a triable issue of fact regarding the medical necessity of the services. The holding of the case was that the denial of the defendant's motion for summary judgment was affirmed, with a determination that there was a triable issue of fact regarding the medical necessity of the services at issue.

Reported in New York Official Reports at Elena Ocher Med., P.C. v Infinity Ins. Co. (2017 NY Slip Op 51730(U))

Elena Ocher Med., P.C. v Infinity Ins. Co. (2017 NY Slip Op 51730(U)) [*1]

Elena Ocher Med., P.C. v Infinity Ins. Co.

2017 NY Slip Op 51730(U) [58 Misc 3d 129(A)]

Decided on December 8, 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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 December 8, 2017
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 2d, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : MICHAEL L. PESCE, P.J., THOMAS P. ALIOTTA, MARTIN M. SOLOMON, JJ
2014-2916 K C

Elena Ocher Medical, P.C., as Assignee of Sofia Fowlin, Respondent,
against
Infinity Insurance Company, Appellant.

Freiberg, Peck & Kang, LLP (Yilo J. Kang, Esq.), for appellant. Zara Javakov, P.C. (Zara Javakov, Esq.), for respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Carol Ruth Feinman, J.), entered October 20, 2014. The order, insofar as appealed from, denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

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, defendant appeals from so much of an order of the Civil Court as denied defendant’s motion which had sought summary judgment dismissing the complaint based upon a lack of medical necessity.

Upon a review of the record, we find 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.

ENTER:
Paul Kenny
Chief Clerk
Decision Date: December 08, 2017