• 347-746-6001
  • contact@beynensonlaw.com
Beynenson Law
Beynenson Law
  • Services
    • Search Case Law & Regulations
    • New Decisions
    • Decisions by Court
    • Legal Questions
    • No-Fault Regulations
    • Claim Process & Deadlines
    • Ask No-Fault AI
    • Arbitrator Scorecard
    • Award Volume
    • Arbitrator / Carrier Data
    • Provider / Carrier Data
    • Provider / Attorney Data
    • Arbitration Pro Extension
  • About Us
  • Contact
  • East Hampton, New York

  • 347-746-6001
  • contact@beynensonlaw.com
  • Services
    • Search Case Law & Regulations
    • New Decisions
    • Decisions by Court
    • Legal Questions
    • No-Fault Regulations
    • Claim Process & Deadlines
    • Ask No-Fault AI
    • Arbitrator Scorecard
    • Award Volume
    • Arbitrator / Carrier Data
    • Provider / Carrier Data
    • Provider / Attorney Data
    • Arbitration Pro Extension
  • About Us
  • Contact
December 10, 2021

Gc Chiropractic, P.C. v American Ind. Ins. Co. (2021 NY Slip Op 51202(U))

https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/gc-chiropractic-p-c-v-american-ind-ins-co-2021-ny-slip-op-51202u/

Court
Appellate Term, Second Department
Decided
December 10, 2021
Citation
2021 NY Slip Op 51202(U) · 73 Misc 3d 142(A)
Posture
Motion to dismiss (CPLR 3211)
Issues
Other
Cite as
Gc Chiropractic, P.C. v American Ind. Ins. Co., 73 Misc 3d 142(A), 2021 NY Slip Op 51202(U) (App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2021)

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.

The appealing insurer lacked aggrievement from denial of a codefendant insurer's jurisdictional motion and the provider's cross motion. The Appellate Term, Second Department, dismissed the appeal under CPLR 5511. The codefendant sought dismissal only of the claims against it for lack of personal jurisdiction. The Civil Court denied that motion and the provider's cross motion, finding a factual issue concerning the codefendant's business activities in New York. The appellant was aggrieved by neither part of the order, so the jurisdictional merits were not reached.

Reported in New York Official Reports at Gc Chiropractic, P.C. v American Ind. Ins. Co. (2021 NY Slip Op 51202(U))

[*1]
GC Chiropractic, P.C. v American Ind. Ins. Co.
2021 NY Slip Op 51202(U) [73 Misc 3d 142(A)]
Decided on December 10, 2021
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 10, 2021

SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 2d, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS


PRESENT: : THOMAS P. ALIOTTA, P.J., DAVID ELLIOT, DONNA-MARIE E. GOLIA, JJ
2018-2009 K C
GC Chiropractic, P.C., as Assignee of Monroe, Andrew, Respondent,

against

American Independent Ins. Co., American Independent Insurance Companies, Inc. and Good2Go Auto Insurance, Defendants, and Omni Indemnity Company, Appellant.

Freiberg, Peck & Kang, LLP (Yilo J. Kang of counsel), for appellant. The Rybak Firm, PLLC (Damin J. Toell of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Lorna J. McAllister, J.), entered September 18, 2018. The order denied a motion by defendant American Independent Ins. Co. which sought to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against it.

ORDERED that the appeal is dismissed.

In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, the Civil Court denied a motion by defendant American Independent Ins. Co., Inc. (AIIC) which had sought to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against it on the ground that plaintiff had failed to obtain personal jurisdiction over it. Plaintiff cross-moved, among other things, for “an order pursuant to . . . CPLR 3212 (a) denying [AIIC’s] Motion for Summary Judgment.” By order entered September 18, 2018, the Civil Court denied AIIC’s motion and plaintiff’s cross motion. Defendant Omni Indemnity Company appeals from each and every part of the order.

Defendant Omni Indemnity Company is not aggrieved by so much of the order as denied the motion by AIIC which sought to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against it (see CPLR 5511; Rinaldi v Evenflo Co., Inc., 62 AD3d 856 [2009]). Nor is defendant Omni Indemnity Company aggrieved by so much of the order as denied the cross motion by plaintiff and held that a triable issue of fact existed as to whether AIIC did business in the State of New York (see CPLR 5511).

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

ALIOTTA, P.J., ELLIOT and GOLIA, JJ., concur.


ENTER:
Paul Kenny
Chief Clerk
Decision Date: December 10, 2021

Similar decisions

  • TAM Med. Supply Corp. v American Ind. Ins. Co. (2021 NY Slip Op 51203(U))The appealing insurer was not aggrieved by an order denying another insurer's jurisdictional dismissal motion and the provider's cross motion.
  • JCC Med., P.C. v Omni Indem. Co. (2021 NY Slip Op 51246(U))The insurer's summary judgment motion based on its nonissuance of a policy covering the accident vehicle was granted on appeal.
  • Island Life Chiropractic Pain Care, PLLC v Omni Indem. Co. (2019 NY Slip Op 50342(U))The defendant insurer's affidavits established that another carrier issued the policy covering the accident, warranting dismissal.
  • Great Health Care Chiropractic, P.C. v Omni Indem. Co. (2013 NY Slip Op 51450(U))The defendant insurer established that the provider sued the wrong carrier because another insurer issued the policy covering the accident.
  • Charles Deng Acupuncture, P.C. v Omni Indem. Co. (2019 NY Slip Op 50291(U))The defendant insurer established that it had not issued the policy covering the accident and that the provider sued the wrong carrier.
Beynenson Law

Tech-driven New York no-fault collections for healthcare providers.

About the firm

Contact

  • East Hampton, New York

  • 347-746-6001
  • contact@beynensonlaw.com
  • Contact form

Research

  • Search Case Law & Regulations
  • New Decisions
  • Decisions by Court
  • Legal Questions
  • No-Fault Regulations
  • Claim Process & Deadlines
  • Ask No-Fault AI

Arbitration Data

  • Arbitrator Scorecard
  • Award Volume
  • Arbitrator / Carrier Data
  • Provider / Carrier Data
  • Provider / Attorney Data
  • Arbitration Pro Extension

©2026 The Beynenson Law Group, PC. Terms of Use Privacy Policy

Site by khrystev.dev

Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. This website provides general information, not legal advice, and using it does not create an attorney-client relationship. Do not send confidential information through this site.