A.B. Med. Servs., PLLC v National Grange Mut. Ins. Co.

[*1] A.B. Med. Servs., PLLC v National Grange Mut. Ins. Co. 2012 NY Slip Op 50154(U) Decided on January 24, 2012 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 January 24, 2012
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
APPELLATE TERM: 2nd, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : GOLIA, J.P., WESTON and RIOS, JJ
2010-2215 K C. -x

A.B. Medical Services, PLLC as Assignee of AUGUSTE LEMAIRE, Appellant,

against

National Grange Mutual Insurance Company, Respondent. -x

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Lisa S. Ottley, J.), entered September 11, 2009. The order denied plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and granted defendant's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

ORDERED that the order is reversed, without costs, and the matter is remitted to the Civil Court for a new determination of plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and defendant's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

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 denied plaintiff's motion and granted defendant's cross motion on the ground that plaintiff lacked standing to bring the action because its owner's license to practice medicine had been suspended. The court declined to consider defendant's remaining arguments in light of its determination.

On appeal, plaintiff's sole argument is that it is entitled to wind up its affairs and seek to recover no-fault benefits for the services it rendered to its assignors prior to the revocation of its owner's license. We agree (see Kipor Medicine, P.C. v GEICO, 28 Misc 3d 129[A], 2010 NY Slip Op 51247[U] [App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2010]; A.B. Med. Servs., PLLC v Travelers Indem. Co., 26 Misc 3d 69 [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2009]). Thus, both plaintiff's motion for summary judgment should not have been denied and defendant's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint should not have been granted on that ground.

Accordingly, the order is reversed and the matter is remitted to the Civil Court for a new determination of plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and defendant's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Golia, J.P., Weston and Rios, JJ., concur. [*2]
Decision Date: January 24, 2012