July 12, 2004

Hospital for Joint Diseases v Hertz Corp. (2004 NY Slip Op 06025)

Headnote

A hospital as assignee sued to recover no-fault medical payments, and the Supreme Court denied its motion for summary judgment. The hospital established prima facie entitlement to judgment. The defendants claimed they timely denied the claim but provided no evidentiary support, and they offered no proof that the injury and treatment were unrelated to the accident. The Appellate Division concluded that the defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact. It reversed and granted the motion.

Reported in New York Official Reports at Hospital for Joint Diseases v Hertz Corp. (2004 NY Slip Op 06025)

Hospital for Joint Diseases v Hertz Corp.
2004 NY Slip Op 06025 [9 AD3d 392]
July 12, 2004
Appellate Division, Second Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
As corrected through Wednesday, September 22, 2004


Hospital for Joint Diseases, as Assignee of Miguel Salgado, Appellant,
v
Hertz Corporation et al., Respondents.

—[*1]In an action to recover no-fault medical payments under an insurance contract, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Dunne, J.), dated July 7, 2003, which denied its motion for summary judgment.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion is granted.

The plaintiff established its prima facie entitlement to summary judgment on its complaint to recover no-fault medical payments. Although the defendants maintained in opposition to the motion that they timely denied the claim, they failed to provide any evidentiary support for that assertion (see Hospital for Joint Diseases v Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 284 AD2d 374 [2001]). Further, the defendants failed to submit any evidentiary proof to support their claim that the subject injury and treatment were not causally related to the subject motor vehicle accident (see Mount Sinai Hosp. v Triboro Coach, 263 AD2d 11 [1999]). Thus, the defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact to defeat the motion.

In light of our determination, the parties’ remaining contentions have been rendered academic. Krausman, J.P., Adams, Cozier and Rivera, JJ., concur.