April 25, 2006

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

Headnote

The relevant facts considered by the court in this case involved an action to recover no-fault insurance benefits on behalf of Mount Sinai Hospital, as the assignee of Lily Sagiv. The main issue that was decided was whether the defendant, Allstate Insurance Company, was entitled to summary judgment dismissing the first cause of action on the ground that the policy limits had been exhausted. In its holding, the court reversed the lower court's decision, granting summary judgment to the plaintiffs, and instead granted the defendant's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the first cause of action, as the defendant had established its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law based on the exhaustion of policy limits. The court found that the plaintiffs had failed to raise a triable issue of fact, and therefore dismissed the first cause of action.

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.