May 11, 2012

W.H.O. Acupuncture, P.C. v GEICO Gen. Ins. Co. (2012 NY Slip Op 50883(U))

Headnote

The court considered the appeal of W.H.O. Acupuncture, P.C. as Assignee of Charles Rodriguez, who was seeking to recover first-party no-fault benefits from GEICO General Insurance Company. The main issue decided was whether there was a triable issue of fact as to whether GEICO denied any of the claims at issue, and the court ultimately found that the record did not demonstrate the existence of such an issue. As a result, the court affirmed the judgment of the Civil Court granting GEICO's cross motion for summary judgment, and dismissed the complaint. Therefore, the holding of the case was in favor of GEICO, and the judgment was affirmed.

Reported in New York Official Reports at W.H.O. Acupuncture, P.C. v GEICO Gen. Ins. Co. (2012 NY Slip Op 50883(U))

W.H.O. Acupuncture, P.C. v GEICO Gen. Ins. Co. (2012 NY Slip Op 50883(U)) [*1]

W.H.O. Acupuncture, P.C. v GEICO Gen. Ins. Co.

2012 NY Slip Op 50883(U) [35 Misc 3d 141(A)]

Decided on May 11, 2012

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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 May 11, 2012

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

PRESENT: : PESCE, P.J., RIOS and ALIOTTA, JJ
2011-211 Q C.

W.H.O. Acupuncture, P.C. as Assignee of CHARLES RODRIGUEZ, Appellant, —
against
GEICO General Ins. Co., Respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Terrence C. O’Connor, J.), entered October 25, 2010. The order, insofar as appealed from as limited by the brief, granted defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The appeal is deemed from a judgment of the same court entered December 15, 2011, pursuant to the order entered October 25, 2010, dismissing the complaint (see CPLR 5501 [c]).

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, plaintiff appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Civil Court as granted defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. A judgment was subsequently entered, from which the appeal is deemed to have been taken (see CPLR 5501 [c]).

Contrary to plaintiff’s sole argument on appeal, the record does not demonstrate the existence of a triable issue of fact as to whether defendant denied any of the claims at issue. Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

Pesce, P.J., Rios and Aliotta, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: May 11, 2012