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.

Ozone Park Chiropractic As Assignee of Alexander Rodriguez v. Clarendon National Insurance Company

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


July 28, 2011

OZONE PARK CHIROPRACTIC AS ASSIGNEE OF ALEXANDER RODRIGUEZ,
RESPONDENT,
v.
CLARENDON NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY,
APPELLANT.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Cheree A. Buggs, J.), entered January 11, 2010. The order, insofar as appealed from, denied the branch of defendant's motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the complaint as to claims that were denied based upon a lack of medical necessity for the services rendered.

Ozone Park Chiropractic v Clarendon Natl. Ins. Co.

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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 July 28, 2011

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

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, defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. In opposition to defendant's motion, plaintiff submitted, among other things, an affidavit executed by the treating chiropractor. The Civil Court granted defendant's motion as to some of the claims at issue, and denied defendant's motion as to claims that were denied based upon a lack of medical necessity for the services rendered, finding a triable issue of fact as to those claims. Defendant appeals from the partial denial of its motion for summary judgment.

Inasmuch as the affidavit of plaintiff's treating provider raised a triable issue of fact in opposition to defendant's prima facie showing, the order, insofar as appealed from, is affirmed (see Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557 [1980]).

Pesce, P.J., Golia and Steinhardt, JJ., concur.

Decision Date: July 28, 2011

20110728

© 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.