December 22, 2017
Exclusive Physical Therapy, P.C. v Country-Wide Ins. Co. (2017 NY Slip Op 51855(U))
https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/exclusive-physical-therapy-p-c-v-country-wide-ins-co-2017-ny-slip-op51855u/
- Decided
- December 22, 2017
- Citation
- 2017 NY Slip Op 51855(U) · 58 Misc 3d 139(A)
- Posture
- Summary judgment
- Outcome
- Insurer prevailed
- Issues
- Other
Posture, outcome, issues and treatment by other decisions are Beynenson Law’s classification. Treatment labels are assigned by a language model reading the citing decision; negative and appeal-history labels are checked by a second reader.
Summary
Editorial summary by Beynenson Law, not part of the court’s decision.
Reported in New York Official Reports at Exclusive Physical Therapy, P.C. v Country-Wide Ins. Co. (2017 NY Slip Op 51855(U))
| Exclusive Physical Therapy, P.C. v Country-Wide Ins. Co. |
| 2017 NY Slip Op 51855(U) [58 Misc 3d 139(A)] |
| Decided on December 22, 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| This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 22, 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
2015-294 Q C
against
Country-Wide Ins. Co., Respondent.
Petre and Zabokritsky, P.C. (Zachary Rozenberg, Esq.), for appellant. Jaffe & Koumourdas, LLP (Jean H. Kang, Esq.), for respondent.
Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (William A. Viscovich, J.), entered December 2, 2014. The order, insofar as appealed from as limited by the brief, denied the branches of plaintiff’s motion seeking summary judgment upon so much of the complaint as sought to recover upon claims for the sums of $246.40 and $985.60, and granted the branches of defendant’s cross motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as it sought to recover upon those claims.
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 moved for summary judgment and defendant cross-moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Insofar as is relevant to this appeal, by order entered December 2, 2014, the Civil Court denied the branches of plaintiff’s motion seeking summary judgment upon so much of the complaint as sought to recover upon claims for the sums of $246.40 and $985.60, and granted the branches of defendant’s cross motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as it sought to recover upon those claims.
For the reasons stated in MT Servs. P.T., P.C., as Assignee of Richardson Steven v Country-Wide Ins. Co. (__ Misc 3d ___, 2017 NY Slip Op _____ [appeal No. 2015-155 Q C], decided herewith), the order, insofar as appealed from, is affirmed.
PESCE, P.J., ALIOTTA and SOLOMON, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Paul Kenny
Chief Clerk
Decision Date: December 22, 2017
Similar decisions
- Comprehensive Care Physical Therapy, P.C. v State-Wide Ins. Co. (2017 NY Slip Op 51448(U))The insurer's affirmation established the provider's failure to appear for EUOs on the five claims at issue on appeal.
- Avenue I Med., P.C. v Country-Wide Ins. Co. (2017 NY Slip Op 51852(U))The provider's summary judgment motion was denied and the insurer's cross motion to dismiss the assigned no-fault claims was granted.
- Fine Arts PT, P.C. v Country-Wide Ins. Co. (2017 NY Slip Op 51854(U))The provider's summary judgment motion was denied and the insurer's cross motion to dismiss the assigned no-fault claims was granted.
- W.H.O. Acupuncture, P.C. v Country-Wide Ins. Co. (2017 NY Slip Op 51856(U))The provider's summary judgment motion was denied and the insurer's cross motion to dismiss the assigned no-fault claims was granted.
- Comprehensive Care Physical Therapy, P.C. v Allstate Ins. Co. (2018 NY Slip Op 50848(U))The insurer failed to establish timely mailing of denials supporting its IME nonappearance and fee schedule defenses.