No-Fault Case Law

The court considered an appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County, which granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The main issue decided was whether the plaintiff had failed to appear for duly scheduled examinations under oath (EUOs), which would result in the dismissal of the complaint. The holding of the case was that the affirmation submitted by the defendant's attorney was sufficient to establish that the plaintiff had indeed failed to appear for the EUOs, and therefore the order granting the defendant's motion for summary judgment was affirmed.

The court considered the motion for summary judgment filed by the defendant, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., in response to an action by Flatbush Chiropractic, P.C. to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits. The main issue decided was whether the plaintiff failed to appear for scheduled examinations under oath, and whether this failure justified the granting of the defendant's motion for summary judgment. The holding of the court was that the order granting the defendant's motion for summary judgment to dismiss the complaint was affirmed, with the court citing a previous decision in a similar case for the reasons for the decision.

The relevant facts the court considered in the case were that Flatbush Chiropractic, P.C. was seeking to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits from State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. The main issue decided was whether the plaintiff had failed to appear for duly scheduled examinations under oath. The holding of the case was that the appellate term affirmed the lower court's decision to grant the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, based on the plaintiff's failure to appear for scheduled examinations under oath. The court affirmed the decision with $25 costs, citing a related case for the reasons for the affirmance.

The court considered a provider's attempt to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits from an insurance company. The main issue decided in this case was whether the provider had failed to appear for duly scheduled examinations under oath, which led to the dismissal of the complaint. The holding of the court was that the order granting the insurance company's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint was affirmed, as the provider had indeed failed to appear for the scheduled examinations under oath.

The court considered the case of Restoration Chiropractic, P.C. v State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., in which the plaintiff, Restoration Chiropractic, P.C., as assignee of Carreras, Kevin, appealed from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York that granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The main issue decided was whether the plaintiff had failed to appear for duly scheduled examinations under oath, which was the grounds for the defendant's motion for summary judgment. The holding of the court was that based on the reasons stated in a similar case, the order of the Civil Court was affirmed, with the plaintiff being required to pay $25 in costs.

The court considered the appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, where the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and denying the plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment was granted. The main issue decided was whether the trial court erred in granting the defendant's motion for summary judgment and denying the plaintiff's cross-motion. The holding of the case was that the order of the Civil Court was modified to the extent of denying the defendant's motion for summary judgment and reinstating the complaint. The court affirmed the order as modified, with costs.

The court considered the evidentiary proof submitted by the defendant-insurer, which demonstrated a "founded belief" that the injuries sustained in a staged accident. However, the court found that this evidence was insufficient to warrant summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The main issue decided was whether the injuries arose out of an insured incident, and the court held that the first party, no-fault action was not susceptible to summary disposition. As a result, the court modified the order to deny the defendant's motion for summary judgment and reinstated the complaint, affirming it with costs of $10.

The court considered an appeal from an order of the Civil Court which denied the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and granted the defendant's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The main issue decided was whether the defendant had raised a triable issue of fact as to whether it had not received all requested verification, and if this action was premature. The holding of the case was that the defendant did not demonstrate that the action was premature, as its papers did not show that the specific verification at issue had ever been requested from the plaintiff. Therefore, the judgment of the Civil Court was affirmed.

The court considered the fact that Island Life Chiropractic, P.C. (the appellant) was seeking to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits from Allstate Insurance Company (the respondent), and that the respondent had moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the grounds that they had not issued an insurance policy covering the subject loss. The main issue decided was whether the respondent had issued a policy covering the subject loss, and thus whether the appellant had sued the wrong insurer. The court held that the proof submitted by the respondent was sufficient to establish that they had not issued a policy covering the subject loss, and therefore affirmed the order granting the respondent's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

The relevant facts considered by the court were that Professional Health Imaging, P.C. sued State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co. to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co. moved for summary judgment to dismiss the complaint on the grounds that Professional Health Imaging, P.C. had failed to appear for duly scheduled examinations under oath. In response, Professional Health Imaging, P.C. cross-moved for summary judgment or, in the alternative, to strike State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co.'s answer and to compel them to respond to discovery demands. The main issue decided was whether State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co. was entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaint due to Professional Health Imaging, P.C.'s failure to appear for examinations under oath, and whether Professional Health Imaging, P.C. was entitled to summary judgment or alternative relief. The holding of the case was that the order granting State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co.'s motion for summary judgment and denying Professional Health Imaging, P.C.'s cross motion was affirmed. The decision was in line with the ruling in Professional Health Imaging, P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., and the costs of $25 were to be paid by Professional Health Imaging, P.C.