April 25, 2006

Mount Sinai Hosp. v Allstate Ins. Co. (2006 NY Slip Op 03060)

https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/mount-sinai-hosp-v-allstate-ins-co-2006-ny-slip-op-03060/

Court
Appellate Division, Second Department
Decided
April 25, 2006
Citation
2006 NY Slip Op 03060 · 28 AD3d 727
Posture
Summary judgment
Outcome
Insurer prevailed
Issues
Policy issues
Cite as
Mount Sinai Hosp. v Allstate Ins. Co., 28 AD3d 727 (2d Dept 2006)

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 insurer's cross motion for summary judgment on the first cause of action was granted on appeal based on exhausted policy limits. The Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed the order, insofar as appealed from, denied the providers' motion upon reargument, and dismissed that cause. The court stated that the insurer established exhaustion and the providers raised no triable issue, citing New York & Presbyt. Hosp. v Allstate Ins. Co.

Reported in New York Official Reports at Mount Sinai Hosp. v Allstate Ins. Co. (2006 NY Slip Op 03060)

Mount Sinai Hosp. v Allstate Ins. Co.
2006 NY Slip Op 03060 [28 AD3d 727]
April 25, 2006
Appellate Division, Second Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
As corrected through Wednesday, June 21, 2006
Mount Sinai Hospital, as Assignee of Lily Sagiv, et al., Respondents,
v
Allstate Insurance Company, Appellant.

—[*1]In an action to recover no-fault insurance benefits, the defendant appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Mahon, J.), entered February 14, 2005, as, upon granting the plaintiffs’ motion, in effect, for reargument of their motion for summary judgment which was denied in a prior order dated May 11, 2004, and, in effect, for reargument of the defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment which was granted in the prior order dated May 11, 2004, granted that branch of the plaintiffs’ motion which was for summary judgment on the first cause of action and denied that branch of the defendant’s cross motion which was for summary judgment dismissing that cause of action.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, and upon reargument, that branch of the plaintiffs’ motion which was for summary judgment on their first cause of action is denied and that branch of the defendant’s cross motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the first cause of action is granted, and the first cause of action is dismissed.

The defendant established its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the first cause of action on the ground that the policy limits had been exhausted (see New York & Presbyt. Hosp. v Allstate Ins. Co., 12 AD3d 579 [2004]; see also Pantaleone v Viewmore Homes, 225 AD2d 599 [1996]). The plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact. [*2]

The plaintiffs’ remaining contentions are without merit. Florio, J.P., Santucci, Goldstein and Skelos, JJ., concur.

Similar decisions