Medical Assoc., P.C. v Geico Gen. Ins. Co.

Annotate this Case
[*1] Medical Assoc., P.C. v Geico Gen. Ins. Co. 2014 NY Slip Op 51829(U) Decided on December 17, 2014 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 December 17, 2014
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 2d, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : PESCE, P.J., ALIOTTA and SOLOMON, JJ.
2012-2000 K C

Medical Associates, P.C. as Assignee of DMITRY KHAIMOV, Respondent,

against

Geico General Ins. Co., Appellant.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Robin Kelly Sheares, J.), entered May 29, 2012. The order granted plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and denied defendant's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

ORDERED that the order is modified by providing that plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is denied; as so modified, the order is affirmed, without costs.

In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, defendant appeals from an order of the Civil Court which granted plaintiff's motion for


summary judgment and denied defendant's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Defendant's moving papers established that defendant had timely denied the claim at issue (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]) based on a lack of medical necessity. However, upon a review of the record, we find that there is a triable issue of fact regarding the medical necessity of the services at issue (see Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557 [1980]).

Accordingly, the order is modified by providing that plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is denied.

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


Decision Date: December 17, 2014

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.