Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Triangle R, Inc. as Assignee of ROY ENCARNACION, Respondent v. GEICO Insurance Company

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK APPELLATE TERM: 2nd, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS


November 26, 2010

TRIANGLE R, INC. AS ASSIGNEE OF ROY ENCARNACION, RESPONDENT,
v.
GEICO INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLANT.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Diane A. Lebedeff, J.), entered March 18, 2009.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Present: Weston, J.P.,

Triangle R, Inc. v GEICO Ins. Co.

Decided on November 26, 2010

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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 November 26, 2010

RIOS and STEINHARDT, JJ

The order, insofar as appealed from, in effect, denied defendant's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

ORDERED that the order, insofar as appealed from, is reversed, without costs, and defendant's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted.

In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, plaintiff moved for summary judgment. Defendant opposed the motion and cross-moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Insofar as is relevant to this appeal, the Civil Court found that defendant's denial of claim form was "timely and proper," and that the sole issue to be determined at trial was the medical necessity of the medical equipment at issue. Defendant appeals from so much of the order as, in effect, denied its cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

In support of its cross motion, defendant submitted, among other things, a sworn peer review report, which set forth a factual basis and medical rationale for the peer reviewer's determination that there was a lack of medical necessity for the medical equipment at issue. Defendant's showing that the equipment was not medically necessary was unrebutted by plaintiff.

In light of the foregoing, and the Civil Court's CPLR 3212 (g) finding that defendant's denial was "timely and proper," a finding which plaintiff has not disputed on appeal, defendant's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint should have been granted (see Delta Diagnostic Radiology, P.C. v Integon Natl. Ins. Co., 24 Misc 3d 136[A], 2009 NY Slip Op 51502[U] [App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2009]; Delta Diagnostic Radiology, P.C. v American Tr. Ins. Co., 18 Misc 3d 128[A], 2007 NY Slip Op 52455[U] [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2007]; A. Khodadadi Radiology, P.C. v NY Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 16 Misc 3d 131[A], 2007 NY Slip Op 51342[U] [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2007]).

Weston, J.P., Rios and Steinhardt, JJ., concur. Decision

20101126

© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.