Health Ins. Plan of Greater N.Y. v TMS Bus. Automation Group Inc.

[*1] Health Ins. Plan of Greater N.Y. v TMS Bus. Automation Group Inc. 2004 NY Slip Op 51433(U) Decided on November 19, 2004 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 19, 2004
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
APPELLATE TERM: 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: November 19, 2004 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK APPELLATE TERM : 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS PRESENT : McCABE, P.J., COVELLO and TANENBAUM, JJ.
2004-98 N C

THE HEALTH INSURANCE PLAN OF GREATER NEW YORK, Respondent,

against

TMS BUSINESS AUTOMATION GROUP INC., Appellant.

Appeal by defendant from so much of an order of the District Court, Nassau County (J. Asarch, J.), dated September 18, 2003, granting its motion for reargument as, upon reargument, adhered to its order dated July 15, 2003 wherein it denied defendant's motion for summary judgment.

Order unanimously affirmed with $10 costs.

Plaintiff maintained a medical insurance policy for IAS Consulting, Inc. (IAS) and another insurance policy for defendant. In a fax, defendant asked plaintiff to change the name on IAS's account from IAS to defendant. Plaintiff did so and seeks to collect from defendant the unpaid premiums which were owed to it prior to the name change. Defendant contends that it is not liable because it did not agree to assume IAS's debt. After the court denied defendant's motion for summary judgment, defendant sought reargument. Upon reargument, the court adhered to its determination that defendant was not entitled to summary judgment and this appeal ensued.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party and giving it the benefit of all favorable inferences (see Murdocca v DiGioia, 264 AD2d 509 [1999]), there is an issue of fact as to whether defendant was liable for the unpaid premiums which accrued before defendant asked plaintiff to change the name on IAS's account from IAS to defendant. [*2]
Decision Date: November 19, 2004