Oriental World Acupuncture, P.C. v GEICO

Annotate this Case
[*1] Oriental World Acupuncture, P.C. v GEICO 2012 NY Slip Op 51062(U) Decided on June 11, 2012 Appellate Term, Second 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 June 11, 2012
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 2d, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : PESCE, P.J., WESTON and ALIOTTA, JJ
2010-2723 K C.

Oriental World Acupuncture, P.C. as Assignee of DAMARIS RAMOS, Respondent,

against

GEICO, Appellant.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Robin S. Garson, J.), entered August 17, 2010. The order granted plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and implicitly denied defendant's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.


ORDERED that the order is reversed, without costs, plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is denied, and defendant's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted.

In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, defendant appeals from an order of the Civil Court granting plaintiff's motion for
summary judgment and implicitly denying defendant's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

The affidavit by defendant's employee, submitted in support of defendant's cross motion, demonstrated that defendant had fully paid plaintiff for the acupuncture services at issue, in accordance with the workers' compensation fee schedule (see Great Wall Acupuncture, P.C. v GEICO Ins. Co., 26 Misc 3d 23 [App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2009]). Accordingly, the [*2]order is reversed, plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is denied and defendant's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted.

Pesce, P.J., Weston and Aliotta, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: June 11, 2012

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.