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.

Park Slope Medical and Surgical Supply, Inc. As Assignee of Mikhail Vinitsky v. Geico Ins. Co

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


February 14, 2011

PARK SLOPE MEDICAL AND SURGICAL SUPPLY, INC. AS ASSIGNEE OF MIKHAIL VINITSKY,
RESPONDENT,
v.
GEICO INS. CO.,
APPELLANT.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Carmen R. Velasquez, J.), entered July 7, 2009.

Park Slope Med. & Surgical Supply, Inc. v GEICO Ins. Co.

Decided on February 14, 2011 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

PRESENT: STEINHARDT, J.P., PESCE and WESTON, JJ

Theorder, insofar as appealed from, in effect, denied defendant's cross motion for summary judgment.

ORDERED that the order, insofar as appealed from, is affirmed, without costs.

In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, plaintiff moved for summary judgment and defendant cross-moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The Civil Court, in effect, denied both motions, holding, pursuant to CPLR 3212 (g), that the sole issue to be determined at trial was the medical necessity of the medical supplies at issue. Defendant appeals from so much of the order as, in effect, denied its cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

The papers submitted in support of defendant's cross motion for summary judgment included two peer review reports in admissible form, both of which set forth a factual basis and medical rationale for the peer reviewers' opinions that there was a lack of medical necessity for the medical supplies at issue. In opposition to defendant's cross motion, plaintiff submitted an affirmation of its doctor which sufficiently demonstrated the existence of a question of fact as to medical necessity (see Quality Psychological Servs., P.C. v Mercury Ins. Group, 27 Misc 3d 129[A], 2010 NY Slip Op 50601[U] [App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2010]; Park Slope Med. & Surgical Supply, Inc. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 22 Misc 3d 141[A], 2009 NY Slip Op 50441[U] [App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2009]). In view of the existence of a triable issue of fact as to the medical necessity of the medical supplies in question, defendant's cross motion for summary judgment was properly denied (see Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557 [1980]).

Steinhardt, J.P., Pesce and Weston, JJ., concur. Decision Date: February 14, 2011

20110214

© 1992-2011 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.