• 347-746-6001
  • contact@beynensonlaw.com
Beynenson Law
Beynenson Law
  • Services
    • Search Case Law & Regulations
    • New Decisions
    • Decisions by Court
    • Legal Questions
    • No-Fault Regulations
    • Claim Process & Deadlines
    • Ask No-Fault AI
    • Arbitrator Scorecard
    • Award Volume
    • Arbitrator / Carrier Data
    • Provider / Carrier Data
    • Provider / Attorney Data
    • Arbitration Pro Extension
  • About Us
  • Contact
  • East Hampton, New York

  • 347-746-6001
  • contact@beynensonlaw.com
  • Services
    • Search Case Law & Regulations
    • New Decisions
    • Decisions by Court
    • Legal Questions
    • No-Fault Regulations
    • Claim Process & Deadlines
    • Ask No-Fault AI
    • Arbitrator Scorecard
    • Award Volume
    • Arbitrator / Carrier Data
    • Provider / Carrier Data
    • Provider / Attorney Data
    • Arbitration Pro Extension
  • About Us
  • Contact
July 12, 2019

New Millennium Med. Imaging, P.C. v Charter Oak Fire Ins. Co. (2019 NY Slip Op 51163(U))

https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/new-millennium-med-imaging-p-c-v-charter-oak-fire-ins-co-2019-ny-slip-op51163u/

Court
Appellate Term, Second Department
Decided
July 12, 2019
Citation
2019 NY Slip Op 51163(U) · 64 Misc 3d 137(A)
Posture
Summary judgment
Outcome
Insurer prevailed
Later treatment
Followed in 1 later decision (see Cited by)
Issues
Policy issues
Cite as
New Millennium Med. Imaging, P.C. v Charter Oak Fire Ins. Co., 64 Misc 3d 137(A), 2019 NY Slip Op 51163(U) (App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2019)

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 obtained summary judgment because its proof showed that it had issued no policy covering the loss. The Appellate Term, Second Department, rejected the provider's challenge to the sufficiency of that proof and affirmed the order granting the insurer's motion dismissing the complaint and denying the provider's cross motion for summary judgment.

Reported in New York Official Reports at New Millennium Med. Imaging, P.C. v Charter Oak Fire Ins. Co. (2019 NY Slip Op 51163(U))

[*1]
New Millennium Med. Imaging, P.C. v Charter Oak Fire Ins. Co.
2019 NY Slip Op 51163(U) [64 Misc 3d 137(A)]
Decided on July 12, 2019
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 July 12, 2019

SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 2d, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS


PRESENT: : MICHAEL L. PESCE, P.J., MICHELLE WESTON, THOMAS P. ALIOTTA, JJ
2017-1041 K C
New Millennium Medical Imaging, P.C., as Assignee of Daishawn Higgins, Appellant,

against

Charter Oak Fire Insurance Company, Respondent.

Law Office of Damin J. Toell, P.C. (Damin J. Toell of counsel), for appellant. Law Office of Aloy O. Ibuzor (Janice A. Robinson of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Richard J. Montelione, J.), entered February 16, 2017. The order granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and denied plaintiff’s cross motion for summary judgment.

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

In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Civil Court which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that defendant had not issued an insurance policy covering the subject loss, and denied plaintiff’s cross motion for summary judgment.

Contrary to plaintiff’s contention, the proof submitted by defendant was sufficient to demonstrate that it had not issued a policy covering the subject loss (see e.g. New Way Med. Supply Corp. v Dollar Rent A Car, 49 Misc 3d 154[A], 2015 NY Slip Op 51794[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2015]; Delta Diagnostic Radiology, P.C. v American Tr. Ins. Co., 44 Misc 3d 136[A], 2014 NY Slip Op 51240[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2014]).

Accordingly, the order is affirmed.

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


ENTER:
Paul Kenny
Chief Clerk
Decision Date: July 12, 2019

Cited in this decision

  • New Way Med. Supply Corp. v Dollar Rent A Car (2015 NY Slip Op 51794(U))The self-insurer's claims examiner affidavit established its lack-of-coverage defense without detailing each records-search step.
  • Delta Diagnostic Radiology, P.C. v American Tr. Ins. Co. (2014 NY Slip Op 51240(U))The insurer's examiner affidavit established that it had not issued a policy covering the accident.

Cited by

A label shows how the later decision treated this one.

  • SK Prime Med. Supply v Country Wide Ins. Co. (2021 NY Slip Op 51204(U)) FollowedThe insurer's underwriting affidavit established that it had issued no policy covering the accident, and the provider raised no triable issue.

Similar decisions

  • New Millennium Med. Imaging, P.C. v American Tr. Ins. Co. (2017 NY Slip Op 51088(U))The insurer's late opposition papers were properly considered and raised a factual issue as to whether the claims had been timely denied.
  • New Millennium Med. Imaging, P.C. v Farmers Ins. Co. (2023 NY Slip Op 50091(U))The insurer's motion for summary judgment dismissing the provider's no-fault action as time-barred was denied.
  • New Millennium Med. Imaging, P.C. v 21st Century Ins. Co. (2022 NY Slip Op 50605(U))The provider failed to justify its late claim submission because the form sent to the wrong insurer bore the defendant insurer's name and address.
  • New Millennium Med. Imaging, P.C. v GEICO (2022 NY Slip Op 50928(U))The insurer's motion to dismiss the no-fault action on statute-of-limitations grounds was denied, and the denial was affirmed.
  • Comprehensive MRI of N.Y., P.C. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. (2014 NY Slip Op 50128(U))Conflicting medical expert opinions raised a triable issue of fact concerning the medical necessity of the provider's services.
Beynenson Law

Tech-driven New York no-fault collections for healthcare providers.

About the firm

Contact

  • East Hampton, New York

  • 347-746-6001
  • contact@beynensonlaw.com
  • Contact form

Research

  • Search Case Law & Regulations
  • New Decisions
  • Decisions by Court
  • Legal Questions
  • No-Fault Regulations
  • Claim Process & Deadlines
  • Ask No-Fault AI

Arbitration Data

  • Arbitrator Scorecard
  • Award Volume
  • Arbitrator / Carrier Data
  • Provider / Carrier Data
  • Provider / Attorney Data
  • Arbitration Pro Extension

©2026 The Beynenson Law Group, PC. Terms of Use Privacy Policy

Site by khrystev.dev

Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. This website provides general information, not legal advice, and using it does not create an attorney-client relationship. Do not send confidential information through this site.