July 18, 2025

Shamrock Med., P.C. v Personal Serv. Ins. Co. (2025 NY Slip Op 51175(U))

Headnote

In this case, the court considered the procedural posture of the appeal concerning a no-fault benefits dispute, where Shamrock Medical, P.C., as the assignee of Rexford Bishop, sought to recover benefits from Personal Service Insurance Company. The primary issue resolved was whether the order of the Civil Court, which granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint in part by setting a traverse hearing, was appealable. The holding determined that no appeal lies as of right from such an order, leading to the dismissal of the appeal. The court referenced relevant case law to support its decision and concluded that leave to appeal was not warranted.

Reported in New York Official Reports at Shamrock Med., P.C. v Personal Serv. Ins. Co. (2025 NY Slip Op 51175(U))

[*1]

Shamrock Med., P.C. v Personal Serv. Ins. Co.

2025 NY Slip Op 51175(U)

Decided on July 18, 2025

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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 July 18, 2025

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

PRESENT: : WAVNY TOUSSAINT, P.J., CHEREÉ A. BUGGS, LISA S. OTTLEY, JJ
2024-858 K C

Shamrock Medical, P.C., as Assignee of Rexford Bishop, Respondent,

against

Personal Service Insurance Company, Appellant.

Freiberg, Peck & Kang, LLP (Yilo J. Kang of counsel), for appellant. Kopelevich & Feldsherova, P.C., for respondent (no brief filed).

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Edward H. King, J.), entered June 4, 2024. The order, insofar as appealed from, granted the branch of defendant’s motion seeking to dismiss the complaint only to the extent of setting the matter down for a traverse hearing.

ORDERED that the appeal is dismissed.

In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, defendant appeals from so much of an order of the Civil Court (Edward H. King, J.) entered June 4, 2024 as granted the branch of defendant’s motion seeking to dismiss the complaint only to the extent of setting the matter down for a traverse hearing.

No appeal lies as of right from an order setting a matter down for a traverse hearing (see CCA 1702 [a] [2]; State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v Omezie, 54 Misc 3d 136[A], 2017 NY Slip Op 50110[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2017]; Wheeler v McCreight, 34 Misc 3d 144[A], 2012 NY Slip Op 50143[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2012]; Citibank, N.A. v S & J Inzlicht, Inc., 8 Misc 3d 134[A], 2005 NY Slip Op 51174[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2005]; see also Frost v Halvorsen, 100 AD2d 608 [1984]), and we decline to grant leave to appeal therefrom.

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

TOUSSAINT, P.J., BUGGS and OTTLEY, JJ., concur.

ENTER:
Paul Kenny
Chief Clerk
Decision Date: July 18, 2025