Healthy Way Acupuncture, P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.

Annotate this Case
[*1] Healthy Way Acupuncture, P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. 2015 NY Slip Op 51049(U) Decided on July 7, 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 July 7, 2015
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 2d, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : ELLIOT, J.P., PESCE and SOLOMON, JJ.
2013-2164 Q C

Healthy Way Acupuncture, P.C. as Assignee of ELSIE CAMBERO, Appellant, July 7, 2015

against

State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co., Respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Maureen A. Healy, J.), entered July 12, 2013. The order granted defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and implicitly denied plaintiff's cross motion to, among other things, disqualify defendant's law firm.

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

In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that plaintiff had failed to appear for duly scheduled examinations under oath. The motion was supported by, among other things, an affirmation from a partner in the law firm representing defendant, attesting to plaintiff's failure to appear. Plaintiff cross-moved to, among other things, disqualify the law firm representing defendant, pursuant to rule 3.7 of the Rules of Professional Conduct (22 NYCRR 1200.0), on the ground that a member of the firm was a necessary witness in this case. Plaintiff appeals from an order of the Civil Court granting defendant's motion and implicitly denying plaintiff's cross motion.

For the reasons stated in Lotus Acupuncture, P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 44 Misc 3d 142[A], 2014 NY Slip Op 51315[U] [App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2014]), the order is affirmed.

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


Decision Date: July 07, 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.