December 19, 2017

Khan v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. (2017 NY Slip Op 51812(U))

Headnote

The relevant facts considered by the court were that the defendant, New York Central Mutual Fire Insurance Company, appealed from an order denying its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint brought by Intazam Khan, M.D., as assignee of Thomas Altimon, attempting to recover first-party no-fault benefits. The main issue decided by the court was whether there was a triable issue of fact regarding the medical necessity of the services at issue. The holding of the court was that there was indeed a triable issue of fact regarding the medical necessity of the services at issue, and therefore the order denying the defendant's motion for summary judgment was affirmed.

Reported in New York Official Reports at Khan v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. (2017 NY Slip Op 51812(U))

Khan v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. (2017 NY Slip Op 51812(U)) [*1]

Khan v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co.

2017 NY Slip Op 51812(U) [58 Misc 3d 136(A)]

Decided on December 19, 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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 December 19, 2017
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 2d, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : MICHAEL L. PESCE, P.J., THOMAS P. ALIOTTA, MARTIN M. SOLOMON, JJ
2015-859 Q C

Intazam Khan, M.D., as Assignee of Thomas Altimon, Respondent,
against
New York Central Mutual Fire Insurance Company, Appellant.

Gullo & Associates, LLP (Natalie Socorro, Esq.), for appellant. Mandell & Santora (Michael J. Rago, Esq.), for respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Cheree A. Buggs, J.), entered March 12, 2015. The order denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with $25 costs.

In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, defendant appeals from an order of the Civil Court which denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Upon a review of the record, we agree with the Civil Court’s determination that there is a triable issue of fact regarding the medical necessity of the services at issue (see Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557 [1980]).

Accordingly, the order is affirmed.

PESCE, P.J., ALIOTTA and SOLOMON, JJ., concur.

ENTER:
Paul Kenny
Chief Clerk
Decision Date: December 19, 2017