TAM Med. Supply Corp. v 21st Century Ins. Co.

Annotate this Case
[*1] TAM Med. Supply Corp. v 21st Century Ins. Co. 2016 NY Slip Op 51358(U) Decided on September 19, 2016 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 September 19, 2016
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 2d, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : PESCE, P.J., ALIOTTA and SOLOMON, JJ.
2013-2566 Q C

TAM Medical Supply Corp., as Assignee of CASSANDRA AMBROISSE, Appellant,

against

21st Century Insurance Company, Respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Maureen A. Healy, J.), entered November 18, 2013. The order granted defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

ORDERED that the order is reversed, with $30 costs, and defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is denied.

In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, arguing that it had fully paid plaintiff for the supplies at issue in accordance with the workers' compensation fee schedule. The Civil Court granted defendant's motion.

Plaintiff correctly argues on appeal that defendant's motion papers failed to establish, as a matter of law, that the fees that had been charged by plaintiff exceeded the amounts 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 Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2009]). Therefore, defendant was not entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Accordingly, the order is reversed and defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is denied.

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


Decision Date: September 19, 2016

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.