October 13, 2016

Tam Med. Supply Corp. v National Liab. & Fire Ins. Co. (2016 NY Slip Op 51533(U))

https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/tam-med-supply-corp-v-national-liab-fire-ins-co-2016-ny-slip-op51533u/

Court: Appellate Term, Second Department
Decided: October 13, 2016
Citation: 2016 NY Slip Op 51533(U) · 53 Misc 3d 142(A)
Posture: Summary judgment
Outcome: Split result
Issues: Other

Cite as

Tam Med. Supply Corp. v National Liab. & Fire Ins. Co., 53 Misc 3d 142(A), 2016 NY Slip Op 51533(U) (App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2016)

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 parties' competing motions for summary judgment on the provider's no-fault claims were both denied on appeal. The Appellate Term, Second Department, modified the order to deny the insurer's cross motion to dismiss the complaint and left the denial of the provider's motion intact, relying on the companion appeal decided the same day, No. 2014-635 Q C.

Reported in New York Official Reports at Tam Med. Supply Corp. v National Liab. & Fire Ins. Co. (2016 NY Slip Op 51533(U))

[*1]

TAM Med. Supply Corp. v National Liab. & Fire Ins. Co.

2016 NY Slip Op 51533(U) [53 Misc 3d 142(A)]

Decided on October 13, 2016

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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 October 13, 2016

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

PRESENT: : PESCE, P.J., ALIOTTA and SOLOMON, JJ.
2014-638 Q C

TAM Medical Supply Corp., as Assignee of JOEL JACQUEZ, Appellant,
against
National Liability & Fire Insurance Company, Respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Carmen R. Velasquez, J.), entered March 4, 2014. The order denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and granted defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

ORDERED that the order is modified by providing that defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is denied; as so modified, the order is affirmed, without 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 denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and granted defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

For the reasons stated in TAM Med. Supply Corp., as Assignee of Melisa Abdoul v National Liability & Fire Ins. Co. (____ Misc 3d _____, 2016 NY Slip Op ______ [appeal No. 2014-635 Q C], decided herewith), the order is modified by providing that defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is denied.

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

Decision Date: October 13, 2016

Similar decisions

TAM Med. Supply Corp. v American Tr. Ins. Co. (2016 NY Slip Op 51505(U))The insurer's cross motion for summary judgment based on outstanding verification was denied on appeal.
Tam Med. Supply Corp. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. (2016 NY Slip Op 50914(U))The insurer's summary judgment motion asserting that outstanding verification made the provider's action premature was denied on appeal.
TAM Med. Supply Corp. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (2016 NY Slip Op 51327(U))The insurer's motion for summary judgment dismissing the provider's assigned no-fault claims was granted and affirmed on appeal.
Tam Med. Supply Corp. v Fiduciary Ins. Co. of Am. (2016 NY Slip Op 51352(U))The insurer established that it first learned of the accident through an NF-2 form submitted more than 30 days after the accident.
TAM Med. Supply Corp. v 21st Century Ins. Co. (2017 NY Slip Op 51511(U))The insurer's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the provider's claims for failure to appear for EUOs was granted.