January 20, 2017

Integral Assist Med., P.C. v Tri-State Consumer Ins. Co. (2017 NY Slip Op 50103(U))

Headnote

The court considered the appeal from an order of the District Court of Suffolk County, which granted defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint in a case brought by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits. The main issue decided was whether the defendant had taken an adversarial position during claims processing in violation of 11 NYCRR 65-3.2 (b). The court held that there was no merit to the plaintiff's argument on appeal that the defendant had clearly taken an adversarial position during claims processing and affirmed the order of the District Court.

Reported in New York Official Reports at Integral Assist Med., P.C. v Tri-State Consumer Ins. Co. (2017 NY Slip Op 50103(U))

Integral Assist Med., P.C. v Tri-State Consumer Ins. Co. (2017 NY Slip Op 50103(U)) [*1]

Integral Assist Med., P.C. v Tri-State Consumer Ins. Co.

2017 NY Slip Op 50103(U) [54 Misc 3d 135(A)]

Decided on January 20, 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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 January 20, 2017

SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS

PRESENT: : MARANO, P.J., GARGUILO and BRANDS, JJ.
2015-1336 S C

Integral Assist Medical, P.C., as Assignee of LEONID BERKOVICH, Appellant,
against
Tri-State Consumer Insurance Company, Respondent.

Appeal from an order of the District Court of Suffolk County, Third District (C. Stephen Hackeling, J.), dated April 30, 2015. The order granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs.

In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, plaintiff appeals from an order of the District Court which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. There is no merit to plaintiff’s argument on appeal that defendant “clearly took an adversarial position” during claims processing in violation of 11 NYCRR 65-3.2 (b).

Accordingly, the order is affirmed.

Marano, P.J., Garguilo and Brands, JJ., concur.

Decision Date: January 20, 2017