November 4, 2011

Excellassist Med., P.C. v Clarendon Natl. Ins. Co. (2011 NY Slip Op 52071(U))

Headnote

The court considered the fact that Excellassist Medical, P.C. was appealing an order from the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County, which had granted Clarendon National Ins. Co.'s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The main issue decided was whether defendant's peer review report was sufficient to establish defendant's entitlement to summary judgment on the ground of lack of medical necessity, with the plaintiff arguing that it was not. The court held that the peer review report was indeed sufficient to establish the defendant's entitlement to summary judgment and affirmed the order, without costs.

Reported in New York Official Reports at Excellassist Med., P.C. v Clarendon Natl. Ins. Co. (2011 NY Slip Op 52071(U))

Excellassist Med., P.C. v Clarendon Natl. Ins. Co. (2011 NY Slip Op 52071(U)) [*1]

Excellassist Med., P.C. v Clarendon Natl. Ins. Co.

2011 NY Slip Op 52071(U) [33 Misc 3d 138(A)]

Decided on November 4, 2011

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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 November 4, 2011

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

APPELLATE TERM: 2nd, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS

PRESENT: : PESCE, P.J., WESTON and RIOS, JJ
2010-1069 K C.

Excellassist Medical, P.C. as Assignee of NATASHA TOOMER, Appellant,
against
Clarendon National Ins. Co., Respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Peter Paul Sweeney, J.), entered November 5, 2009. The order granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs.

In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, plaintiff appeals from an order granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Contrary to plaintiff’s sole contention on appeal, defendant’s peer review report was sufficient to establish defendant’s entitlement to summary judgment on the ground of lack of medical necessity (see Urban Radiology, P.C. v Tri-State Consumer Ins. Co., 27 Misc 3d 140[A], 2010 NY Slip Op 50987[U] [App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2010]).

Accordingly, the order is affirmed.

Pesce, P.J., Weston and Rios, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: November 04, 2011