February 26, 2021

Schottenstein Pain & Neuro, PLLC v Travelers Indem. Co. of Conn. (2021 NY Slip Op 50156(U))

https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/schottenstein-pain-neuro-pllc-v-travelers-indem-co-of-conn-2021-ny-slip-op-50156u/

Court: Appellate Term, Second Department
Decided: February 26, 2021
Citation: 2021 NY Slip Op 50156(U) · 70 Misc 3d 142(A)
Posture: Summary judgment
Outcome: Provider prevailed
Issues: Policy issues

Cite as

Schottenstein Pain & Neuro, PLLC v Travelers Indem. Co. of Conn., 70 Misc 3d 142(A), 2021 NY Slip Op 50156(U) (App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2021)

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 provider's summary judgment motion was granted and the insurer's cross motion denied despite its New Jersey choice-of-law argument. The Appellate Term, Second Department, affirmed the order applying New York law for the reasons stated in Schottenstein Pain & Neuro, PLLC v Travelers Ins. Co. The insurer's sole appellate contention was that New Jersey law controlled the assigned no-fault benefits action.

Reported in New York Official Reports at Schottenstein Pain & Neuro, PLLC v Travelers Indem. Co. of Conn. (2021 NY Slip Op 50156(U))

[*1]

Schottenstein Pain & Neuro, PLLC v Travelers Indem. Co. of Conn.

2021 NY Slip Op 50156(U) [70 Misc 3d 142(A)]

Decided on February 26, 2021

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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 26, 2021

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

PRESENT: : THOMAS P. ALIOTTA, P.J., DAVID ELLIOT, WAVNY TOUSSAINT, JJ
2019-883 K C

Schottenstein Pain & Neuro, PLLC, as Assignee of Zheng Hua, Respondent,

against

Travelers Indemnity Company of Connecticut, Appellant.

Law Office of Tina Newsome-Lee (Michael J. Rivers of counsel), for appellant. Law Offices of Ilona Finkelshteyn, P.C., for respondent (no brief filed).

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Odessa Kennedy, J.), entered March 11, 2019. The order granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and denied defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with $25 costs.

In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, defendant appeals from an order of the Civil Court entered March 11, 2019 which, applying New York law, granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and denied defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The order states, in part, that “the injured party is a New York resident, who obtained treatment, which is the basis of the instant action, from medical providers in New York. The only connection of the instant matter to New Jersey is the location of the incident.” Defendant’s sole appellate contention is that the Civil Court should have found that the law of New Jersey controlled.

For the reasons stated in Schottenstein Pain & Neuro, PLLC v Travelers Ins. Co. (70 Misc 3d 131[A], 2020 NY Slip Op 51549[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2020]), the order is affirmed.

ALIOTTA, P.J., ELLIOT and TOUSSAINT, JJ., concur.

ENTER:
Paul Kenny
Chief Clerk
Decision Date: February 26, 2021

Cited in this decision

A label shows how this decision treated the case it cites.

Schottenstein Pain & Neuro, PLLC v Travelers Ins. Co. (2020 NY Slip Op 51549(U)) FollowedNew York law governed the no-fault claims because the New York assignor and provider gave New York the most significant contacts.

Similar decisions

Nassau Chiropractic Servs., P.C. v Travelers Indem. Co. (2022 NY Slip Op 50933(U))The insurer established timely mailing of EUO notices and the denial, and the provider's failure to appear for the EUOs. Office-practice affidavits proved mailing, and affirmations from attorneys present to conduct the EUOs established the nonappearances.
Action Potential Chiropractic, PLLC v Travelers Ins. Co. (2018 NY Slip Op 51811(U))The provider failed to establish that its claim was untimely denied or that a timely denial was legally insufficient.
Pain Mgt. Ctr. of N.J., P.C. v Travelers Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. (2019 NY Slip Op 50607(U))The provider identified no ambiguity or factual distinction defeating collateral estoppel from a prior arbitration award.
Cliffside Park Imaging & Diagnostic v Travelers Ins. Co. (2015 NY Slip Op 51489(U))An insurer may use the New Jersey fee schedule to establish the prevailing fee for services rendered there under 11 NYCRR 68.6.
Domny Med. Servs., P.C. v Universal Ins. Co. (2021 NY Slip Op 50301(U))The insurer's summary judgment motion was denied because it did not establish that its out-of-state policy lacked no-fault coverage.