APPELLATE TERM OF THE SUPREME COURT, FIRST DEPARTMENT
April 5, 2011
DEVONSHIRE SURGICAL FACILITY, CARNEGIE HILL ORTHOPEDIC SERVICES, P.C., AND ALLEN C. CHAMBERLIN A/A/O MARIA TAPIA,
PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS, - -
AMERICAN TRANSIT INSURANCE COMPANY,
Plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County (Arlene P. Bluth, J.), dated June 5, 2008, which denied their motion for summary judgment in the principal sum of $9,902.18.
Devonshire Surgical Facility, Carnegie Hill Orthopedic Servs., P.C. v. American Tr. Ins. Co.
Appellate Term, First 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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 April 5, 2011
PRESENT: Schoenfeld, J.P., Shulman, Hunter, Jr., JJ
Order (Arlene P. Bluth, J.), dated June 5, 2008, reversed, without costs, and summary judgment is granted in favor of plaintiff Carnegie Hill Orthopedic Services, P.C. in the principal sum of $6,902.18, and plaintiff Devonshire Surgical Facility in the principal sum of $3,000. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.
In this action to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, plaintiff Devonshire Surgical Facility established its prima facie entitlement to summary judgment on its claim for $3,000, and plaintiff Carnegie Hill Orthopedic Services, P.C., established its entitlement to summary judgment on its claim for $6,902.18 (see Insurance Law § 5106[a]; Mary Immaculate Hosp. v Allstate Ins. Co., 5 AD3d 742 ; Fair Price Med. Supply, Inc. v St. Paul Travelers Ins. Co., 16 Misc 3d 8, 9 ; Devonshire Surgical Facility v American Tr. Ins. Co., 27 Misc 3d 137[A], 2010 NY Slip Op 50867[U] ).
In opposition, defendant failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Even assuming that defendant issued timely denials of plaintiffs' claims (see Country-Wide Ins. Co. v Zablozki, 257 AD2d 506 , lv denied 93 NY2d 809 ), the peer review report relied upon by defendant to deny plaintiffs' claims is conclusory and fails to set forth sufficient facts to raise triable issues with respect to its defense of lack of medical necessity (see East Coast Acupuncture Servs., P.C. v American Tr. Ins. Co., 14 Misc 3d 135[A], 2007 NY Slip Op 50213[U]).
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.
Decision Date: April 05, 2011
© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.