July 5, 2006

New York & Presbyt. Hosp. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. (2006 NY Slip Op 05336)

Headnote

The court considered the fact that New York and Presbyterian Hospital was seeking to recover no-fault benefits from New York Central Mutual Fire Insurance Company under an insurance contract. The main issue in the case was whether the plaintiff hospitals had standing to bring the action. The court decided that the plaintiff hospitals lacked standing, as the proof presented at trial included unsigned assignment of benefit forms as evidence. As a result, the judgment in favor of the plaintiffs was reversed, the defendant's motion was granted, and the complaint was dismissed. The decision was supported by the concurring Justices Schmidt, Adams, Luciano and Lifson.

Reported in New York Official Reports at New York & Presbyt. Hosp. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. (2006 NY Slip Op 05336)

New York & Presbyt. Hosp. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. (2006 NY Slip Op 05336)
New York & Presbyt. Hosp. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co.
2006 NY Slip Op 05336 [31 AD3d 403]
July 5, 2006
Appellate Division, Second Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
As corrected through Wednesday, September 20, 2006
New York and Presbyterian Hospital et al., Respondents,
v
New York Central Mutual Fire Insurance Company, Appellant.

[*1]

In an action to recover no-fault benefits under an insurance contract, the defendant appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Mahon, J.), entered January 20, 2005, which, after a nonjury trial, and upon denying the defendant’s application to dismiss the complaint on the ground of lack of standing, is in favor of the plaintiffs and against it in the total sum of $33,452.77.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

The defendant correctly contends that the plaintiff hospitals lacked standing. The proof adduced at trial included unsigned assignment of benefit forms (see Leon v Martinez, 84 NY2d 83 [1994]). Schmidt, J.P., Adams, Luciano and Lifson, JJ., concur.