June 1, 2004

Nyack Hosp. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (2004 NY Slip Op 04304)

Headnote

The court considered an action to recover no-fault benefits, with the defendant appealing from an order that granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and denied the defendant's cross motion for summary judgment. The main issue in the case was whether the plaintiff demonstrated its entitlement to summary judgment by establishing that the defendant did not deny or pay the two claims in question within 30 days, and if the defendant submitted sufficient evidence to raise a triable issue of fact regarding the medical treatment alleged in the first cause of action and whether the underlying contract of insurance alleged in the third cause of action had been cancelled. The holding of the case was that the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment was properly granted because the defendant did not submit sufficient evidence in admissible form to raise a triable issue of fact, and as a result, the defendant's remaining contentions were deemed academic.

Reported in New York Official Reports at Nyack Hosp. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (2004 NY Slip Op 04304)

Nyack Hosp. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.

2004 NY Slip Op 04304 [8 AD3d 250]

June 1, 2004

Appellate Division, Second Department

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

As corrected through Wednesday, August 25, 2004

Nyack Hospital, Respondent,
v
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, Appellant.

—[*1]

In an action to recover no-fault benefits, the defendant appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Parga, J.), dated November 12, 2003, as granted the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and denied the defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The plaintiff met its initial burden of demonstrating its entitlement to summary judgment by establishing that the defendant did not deny or pay the two claims in question within 30 days (see Insurance Law § 5106 [a]; Central Gen. Hosp. v Chubb Group of Ins. Cos., 90 NY2d 195 [1997]; Bonetti v Integon Natl. Ins. Co., 269 AD2d 413, 414 [2000]). The defendant thereafter failed to submit sufficient evidence in admissible form to raise a triable issue of fact regarding whether the medical treatment alleged in the first cause of action was not causally related to an insured accident and whether the underlying contract of insurance alleged in the third cause of action had been cancelled. Therefore, the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment was properly granted.

In light of our determination, the defendant’s remaining contentions are academic. Smith, J.P., S. Miller, Crane and Rivera, JJ., concur.