A.B. Med. Servs. PLLC v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.

Annotate this Case
[*1] A.B. Med. Servs. PLLC v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. 2005 NYSlipOp 50432(U) Decided on March 31, 2005 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 March 31, 2005
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
APPELLATE TERM: 2nd and 11th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: March 31, 2005 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK APPELLATE TERM : 2nd and 11th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS PRESENT : PESCE, P.J., GOLIA and RIOS, JJ.
2004-869 K C

A.B. MEDICAL SERVICES PLLC D.A.V. CHIROPRACTIC P.C. DANIEL KIM'S ACUPUNCTURE P.C. SOMUN ACUPUNCTURE P.C. SQUARE SYNAGOGUE TRANSPORTATION INC. a/a/o Damaris Rodriquez, Appellants,

against

STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Respondent.

Appeal by plaintiffs, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Civil Court, Kings County (E. Prus, J.), entered April 27, 2004, as denied their motion for partial summary judgment without prejudice to renew upon submission of proper papers.


Order unanimously affirmed without costs.

In an action to recover first-party no-fault benefits for medical services rendered to an assignor, the plaintiff establishes a prima facie entitlement to summary judgment by offering proof that it submitted claims which set forth the fact and the amount of the loss sustained, and that payment of no-fault benefits was overdue (see Insurance Law § 5106 [a]; Mary Immaculate Hosp. v Allstate Ins. Co., 5 AD3d 742 [2004]; Amaze Med. Supply v Eagle Ins. Co., 2 Misc 3d 128[A], 2003 NY Slip Op 51701[U] [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists]). By failing to append the necessary claim forms to their motion papers, plaintiffs did not establish their prima facie case, and the court below appropriately denied their motion for partial summary judgment with leave to renew upon submission of proper papers.
Decision Date: March 31, 2005

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.