November 1, 2016

Omphil Care, P.C. v Allstate Ins. Co. (2016 NY Slip Op 51603(U))

https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/omphil-care-p-c-v-allstate-ins-co-2016-ny-slip-op-51603u/

Court: Appellate Term, Second Department
Decided: November 1, 2016
Citation: 2016 NY Slip Op 51603(U) · 53 Misc 3d 146(A)
Posture: Summary judgment
Outcome: Split result
Issues: EUO no-show

Cite as

Omphil Care, P.C. v Allstate Ins. Co., 53 Misc 3d 146(A), 2016 NY Slip Op 51603(U) (App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2016)

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 based on the provider's EUO nonappearance was denied on appeal. The Appellate Term, Second Department, modified the order for the reasons stated in the companion appeal, Omphil Care, Inc. v Allstate Ins. Co., decided the same day, No. 2013-2290 Q C. The provider's summary judgment motion remained denied.

Reported in New York Official Reports at Omphil Care, P.C. v Allstate Ins. Co. (2016 NY Slip Op 51603(U))

[*1]

Omphil Care, P.C. v Allstate Ins. Co.

2016 NY Slip Op 51603(U) [53 Misc 3d 146(A)]

Decided on November 1, 2016

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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 November 1, 2016

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

PRESENT: : PESCE, P.J., ALIOTTA and SOLOMON, JJ.
2013-2293 Q C

Omphil Care, P.C., as Assignee of PAOLO POUPONNEAU, Appellant,
against
Allstate Insurance Company, Respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (William A. Viscovich, J.), entered September 13, 2013. The order denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and granted defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

ORDERED that the order is modified by providing that defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is denied; as so modified, the order is affirmed, without costs.

In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, plaintiff moved for summary judgment, and defendant cross-moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that plaintiff had failed to appear for duly scheduled examinations under oath. By order entered September 13, 2013, the Civil Court denied plaintiff’s motion and granted defendant’s cross motion.

For the reasons stated in Omphil Care, Inc., as Assignee of Paul Fabiola v Allstate Ins. Co. (___ Misc 3d ___, 2016 NY Slip Op ____ [appeal No. 2013-2290 Q C], decided herewith), the order is modified by providing that defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is denied.

Pesce, P.J., Aliotta and Solomon, JJ., concur.

Decision Date: November 01, 2016

Similar decisions

Omphil Care, Inc. v Allstate Ins. Co. (2016 NY Slip Op 51607(U))The insurer's cross motion for summary judgment based on the provider's EUO nonappearance was denied on appeal.
Omphil Care, Inc. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (2016 NY Slip Op 50899(U))The insurer's summary judgment dismissing the provider's claims for failure to appear for duly scheduled EUOs was affirmed.
Omphil Care, Inc. v GEICO Ins. Co. (2019 NY Slip Op 52065(U))The insurer's summary judgment motion dismissing the complaint for the provider's EUO nonappearance was granted and affirmed.
Comprehensive Care Physical Therapy, P.C. v GEICO Ins. Co. (2019 NY Slip Op 52070(U))The provider's summary judgment motion was denied and the insurer's cross motion dismissing the complaint for EUO nonappearance was granted.
Compas Med., P.C. v Allstate Ins. Co. (2016 NY Slip Op 51356(U))The insurer failed to establish timely mailing of the denials supporting its EUO nonappearance defense.