February 21, 2012

Quality Psychological Servs., P.C. v Clarendon Ins. Co. (2012 NY Slip Op 50345(U))

Headnote

The court considered whether the defendant's motion for summary judgment to dismiss the complaint on the ground that there was no medical necessity for the services rendered should be granted. The main issue decided was whether there was a triable issue of fact as to the medical necessity of the services at issue. The court held that the affidavit of the plaintiff's psychologist submitted in opposition to the defendant's motion was sufficient to demonstrate the existence of a triable issue of fact as to the medical necessity of the services at issue, and therefore affirmed the order denying the defendant's motion for summary judgment.

Reported in New York Official Reports at Quality Psychological Servs., P.C. v Clarendon Ins. Co. (2012 NY Slip Op 50345(U))

Quality Psychological Servs., P.C. v Clarendon Ins. Co. (2012 NY Slip Op 50345(U)) [*1]

Quality Psychological Servs., P.C. v Clarendon Ins. Co.

2012 NY Slip Op 50345(U) [34 Misc 3d 153(A)]

Decided on February 21, 2012

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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 February 21, 2012

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

APPELLATE TERM: 2nd, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS

PRESENT: : PESCE, P.J., WESTON and RIOS, JJ
. ———————————— 1;———————————— 151;———————————— ———————-x

Quality Psychological Services, P.C. as Assignee of RONA FLEURIMOND, Respondent, —
against
Clarendon Insurance Company, Appellant. ———————————— 1;———————————— 151;———————————— ———————-x

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Ingrid Joseph, J.), entered April 1, 2010. The order, insofar as appealed from, denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

ORDERED that the order, insofar as appealed from, is affirmed, without costs.

In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, defendant appeals from so much of an order as denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that there was no medical necessity for the services rendered.

As the affidavit of plaintiff’s psychologist submitted in opposition to defendant’s motion was sufficient to demonstrate the existence of a triable issue of fact as to the medical necessity of the services at issue, the order, insofar as appealed from, is affirmed (see Ozone Park Chiropractic v Clarendon Natl. Ins. Co., 32 Misc 3d 134[A], 2011 NY Slip Op 51453[U] [App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2011]).

Pesce, P.J., Weston and Rios, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: February 21, 2012