Premier Health Choice v Praetorian Ins. Co.

Annotate this Case
[*1] Premier Health Choice v Praetorian Ins. Co. 2015 NY Slip Op 51383(U) Decided on September 29, 2015 Appellate Term, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law ยง 431. This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on September 29, 2015
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT: Shulman, J. P., Hunter, Jr., Ling-Cohan, JJ.
570261/15

Premier Health Choice, a/a/o Jessica Calderon, Plaintiff-Respondent, -

against

Praetorian Insurance Company, Defendant-Appellant.

Defendant appeals from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Bronx County (Gerald Lebovits, J.) entered January 18, 2012, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Per Curiam.

Order (Gerald Lebovits, J.) entered January 18, 2012, reversed, with $10 costs, motion granted and complaint dismissed. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.

Defendant made a prima facie showing of entitlement to summary judgment dismissing plaintiff's no-fault claims for physical therapy treatment rendered to plaintiff's assignor, by submitting the independent medical examination [IME] reports of its examining orthopedic doctor and neurologist which set forth a sufficient factual basis and medical rationale for the conclusion that the assignor's injuries were resolved and that there was no need for further physical therapy treatment. In opposition, the unsworn doctor's report submitted with plaintiff's attorney's affirmation was without probative value (see Grasso v Angerami, 79 NY2d 813 [1991]; Premier Health Choice Chiropractic, P.C. v Praetorian Ins. Co., 41 Misc 3d 133[A], 2013 NY Slip Op 51802[U][App Term, 1st Dept]), and insufficient to raise a triable issue (see CPT Med. Servs., P.C. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 18 Misc 3d 87 [App Term, 1st Dept 2007]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.


I concur I concur I concur
Decision Date: September 29, 2015

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.