December 7, 2009

Georgetown Mind-Body Med., P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (2009 NY Slip Op 52464(U))

Headnote

The relevant facts considered by the court were that plaintiff commenced an action to recover first-party no-fault benefits as an assignee of two individuals, with claims arising from two separate accidents. The main issue decided was defendant's motion to sever the claim of each assignor into separate actions, pursuant to CPLR 603. The court held that defendant's motion to sever the claims of each assignor into separate actions should have been granted because the necessity and reasonableness of the medical services rendered for each claim were likely to raise few, if any, common issues of fact. The decision was reversed and defendant's motion to sever the claims was granted.

Reported in New York Official Reports at Georgetown Mind-Body Med., P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (2009 NY Slip Op 52464(U))

Georgetown Mind-Body Med., P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (2009 NY Slip Op 52464(U)) [*1]

Georgetown Mind-Body Med., P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.

2009 NY Slip Op 52464(U) [25 Misc 3d 142(A)]

Decided on December 7, 2009

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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 7, 2009

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

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

PRESENT: : RIOS, J.P., PESCE and GOLIA, JJ
2008-1654 K C.

Georgetown Mind-Body Med., P.C. a/a/o NICOLE APESA and STEVEN DeSANE, Respondent,
against
State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co., Appellant.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Dolores L. Waltrous, J.), entered April 24, 2008. The order denied defendant’s motion to sever the claim of each assignor into separate actions.

ORDERED that the order is reversed without costs and defendant’s motion to sever the claim of each assignor into separate actions is granted.

Plaintiff commenced this action to recover first-party no-fault benefits as assignee of two individuals. The claims allegedly arose out of two separate accidents. The Civil Court denied defendant’s motion pursuant to CPLR 603 to sever the causes of action into two separate actions.

Defendant’s answer clearly places at issue with respect to each assignor, among other things, the necessity and reasonableness of the particular medical services rendered. The facts relating to each claim are therefore likely to raise few, if any, common issues of fact (see Radiology Resource Network, P.C. v Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co., 12 AD3d 185 [2004]). A severance can be properly based solely upon allegations set forth in the answer, and there is no need to demonstrate prejudice (see Ladim DME, Inc. v GEICO Gen. Ins. Co., 15 Misc 3d 139[A], 2007 NY Slip Op 50997[U] [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2007]). Accordingly, defendant’s motion to sever the causes of action should have been granted.

Rios, J.P., Pesce and Golia, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: December 07, 2009