Neomy Med., P.C. v Praetorian Ins. Co.

Annotate this Case
[*1] Neomy Med., P.C. v Praetorian Ins. Co. 2015 NY Slip Op 51237(U) Decided on August 6, 2015 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 August 6, 2015
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 2d, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : PESCE, P.J., ALIOTTA and SOLOMON, JJ.
2013-509 K C

Neomy Medical, P.C. and PERFECT POINT ACUPUNCTURE, P.C. as Assignees of MICHAL WILLIAMS, Respondents,

against

Praetorian Insurance Company, Appellant.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Ingrid Joseph, J.), entered April 1, 2010. The order denied defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with $25 costs.

In this action by providers to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, defendant appeals from an order of the Civil Court which denied defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

With respect to the bills sued upon by Neomy Medical, P.C., defendant failed to demonstrate that the denial of claim forms had been timely and properly mailed (see St. Vincent's Hosp. of Richmond v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 50 AD3d 1123 [2008]; Delta Diagnostic Radiology, P.C. v Chubb Group of Ins., 17 Misc 3d 16 [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2007]). With respect to the bills sued upon by Perfect Point Acupuncture, P.C., defendant failed to establish as a matter of law that the fees charged exceeded the amount set forth in the workers' compensation fee schedule (see Rogy Med., P.C. v Mercury Cas. Co., 23 Misc 3d 132[A], 2009 NY Slip Op 50732[U] [App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2009]). In view of the foregoing, the Civil Court properly denied defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Accordingly, the order is affirmed.

Pesce, P.J., Aliotta and Solomon, JJ., concur.


Decision Date: August 06, 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.