August 5, 2015

Quality Psychological Servs., P.C. v Esurance Ins. Co. (2015 NY Slip Op 51225(U))

Headnote

The main issue in this case was whether the plaintiff provider was entitled to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits from the defendant insurance company. The court considered the arguments presented by both parties and ultimately decided that the order granting the defendant's motion for summary judgment and denying the plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment should be affirmed. The court found that the arguments raised by the plaintiff on appeal were not properly before the court as they were being raised for the first time, and therefore declined to consider them. The holding of the case was that the order granting the defendant's motion for summary judgment and denying the plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment was affirmed.

Reported in New York Official Reports at Quality Psychological Servs., P.C. v Esurance Ins. Co. (2015 NY Slip Op 51225(U))

Quality Psychological Servs., P.C. v Esurance Ins. Co. (2015 NY Slip Op 51225(U)) [*1]

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

2015 NY Slip Op 51225(U) [48 Misc 3d 139(A)]

Decided on August 5, 2015

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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 August 5, 2015

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

PRESENT: : PESCE, P.J., ALIOTTA and SOLOMON, JJ.
2013-750 K C

Quality Psychological Services, P.C. as Assignee of AIME WILFRED, Appellant, August 5, 2015
against
Esurance Insurance Company, Respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Harriet L. Thompson, J.), entered December 6, 2012. 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 and denied plaintiff’s cross motion for summary judgment.

All of plaintiff’s arguments as to why defendant’s motion for summary judgment should have been denied are not properly before this court, since they are being raised for the first time on appeal, and we decline to consider them (see Joe v Upper Room Ministries, Inc., 88 AD3d 963 [2011]; Gulf Ins. Co. v Kanen, 13 AD3d 579 [2004]). Accordingly, the order is affirmed.

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

Decision Date: August 05, 2015