October 18, 2011

Five Boro Psychological Servs., P.C. v GEICO Gen. Ins. Co. (2011 NY Slip Op 51877(U))

Headnote

The court considered the facts of a trial in which a provider was attempting to recover first-party no-fault benefits that had been assigned to them. The trial court granted the defendant's motion for a directed verdict and dismissed the complaint, finding that the plaintiff had not established that the claim was overdue. The plaintiff's witness's testimony was not based on personal knowledge, and as a result, the judgment was affirmed. The main issue decided was whether the plaintiff had provided sufficient evidence to establish that the claim was overdue, and the holding of the court was that they had not, leading to the affirmation of the judgment.

Reported in New York Official Reports at Five Boro Psychological Servs., P.C. v GEICO Gen. Ins. Co. (2011 NY Slip Op 51877(U))

Five Boro Psychological Servs., P.C. v GEICO Gen. Ins. Co. (2011 NY Slip Op 51877(U)) [*1]

Five Boro Psychological Servs., P.C. v GEICO Gen. Ins. Co.

2011 NY Slip Op 51877(U) [33 Misc 3d 131(A)]

Decided on October 18, 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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 October 18, 2011

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

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

PRESENT: : PESCE, P.J., RIOS and STEINHARDT, JJ
2010-657 K C.

Five Boro Psychological Services, P.C. as Assignee of NADINE ZUBENKO, Appellant,
against
GEICO General Ins. Co., Respondent.

Appeal from a decision of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Peter Paul Sweeney, J.), dated October 8, 2009, deemed from a judgment of the same court entered February 11, 2010 (see CPLR 5520 [c]). The judgment, after a nonjury trial, dismissed the complaint.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

After the trial of this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, the Civil Court granted defendant’s motion for a directed verdict and dismissed the complaint. The court found that plaintiff had not established that the claim at issue was overdue, as the testimony of plaintiff’s witness was not based upon personal knowledge. We agree. Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

Pesce, P.J., Rios and Steinhardt, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: October 18, 2011