July 18, 2025

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

https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/shamrock-med-p-c-v-personal-serv-ins-co-2025-ny-slip-op-51175u/

Court: Appellate Term, Second Department
Decided: July 18, 2025
Citation: 2025 NY Slip Op 51175(U)
Posture: Motion to dismiss (CPLR 3211)
Outcome: Provider prevailed
Issues: Jurisdiction and service Other

Cite as

Shamrock Med., P.C. v Personal Serv. Ins. Co., 2025 NY Slip Op 51175(U) (App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2025)

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.

An order setting a matter down for a traverse hearing is not appealable as of right under CCA 1702 (a) (2). The insurer moved to dismiss the provider's action to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits. The Civil Court granted that branch of the motion only to the extent of directing a traverse hearing. The Appellate Term, Second Department, declined to grant leave to appeal and dismissed the insurer's appeal from that portion of the order.

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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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

Similar decisions

Hand By Hand PT, P.C. v Personal Serv. Ins. Co. (2025 NY Slip Op 51177(U))The insurer's appeal from an order directing a traverse hearing on its dismissal motion was dismissed.
LVOV Acupuncture, P.C. v Personal Serv. Ins. Co. (2025 NY Slip Op 51176(U))The insurer's appeal from an order directing a traverse hearing on its dismissal motion was dismissed.
Queens Brooklyn Med. Rehab, P.C. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. (2011 NY Slip Op 50978(U))The provider's appeal from a conditional discovery order became academic after a subsequent order dismissed the action.
New York Ctr. for Specialty Surgery v Infinity Ins. Co. (2025 NY Slip Op 51832(U))The insurer failed to prove nonreceipt of the claims because its affidavit did not establish incoming-mail practices and procedures.
Active Care Med. Supply Corp. v ELRAC, Inc. (2018 NY Slip Op 50826(U))The self-insurer established timely mailing of its denial, and the provider's remaining argument was raised for the first time on appeal.