Compas Med., P.C. v American Tr. Ins. Co.

Annotate this Case
[*1] Compas Med., P.C. v American Tr. Ins. Co. 2017 NY Slip Op 51142(U) Decided on September 8, 2017 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 8, 2017
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 2d, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : MICHAEL L. PESCE, P.J., THOMAS P. ALIOTTA, MARTIN M. SOLOMON, JJ
2014-1602 Q C

Compas Medical, P.C., as Assignee of Caton, Korina, Appellant,

against

American Transit Ins. Co., Respondent.

The Rybak Firm, PLLC (Damin J. Toell, Esq.), for appellant. Law Office of Jason Tenenbaum, P.C., for respondent (no brief filed).

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Richard G. Latin, J.), entered June 12, 2014. The order, insofar as appealed from, denied plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and granted the branch of defendant's cross motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the first cause of action.

ORDERED that the order, insofar as appealed from, is modified by providing that the branch of defendant's cross motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the first cause of action is denied; as so modified, the order, insofar as appealed from, is affirmed, without costs.

In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, plaintiff moved for summary judgment and defendant cross-moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Insofar as is relevant to this appeal, the Civil Court denied plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and granted the branch of defendant's cross motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the first cause of action.

Plaintiff correctly argues that defendant did not demonstrate, as a matter of law, that it had fully paid plaintiff for the claim underlying the first cause of action in accordance with the [*2]workers' compensation fee schedule. Consequently, the branch of defendant's cross motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the first cause of action should have been denied. However, plaintiff failed to establish its prima facie entitlement to summary judgment, since the proof submitted by plaintiff failed to establish that the claims had not been timely denied (see Viviane Etienne Med. Care, P.C. v Country-Wide Ins. Co., 25 NY3d 498 [2015]), or that defendant had issued timely denial of claim forms that were conclusory, vague or without merit as a matter of law (see Westchester Med. Ctr. v Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 78 AD3d 1168 [2010]; Ave T MPC Corp. v Auto One Ins. Co., 32 Misc 3d 128[A], 2011 NY Slip Op 51292[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2011]).

Accordingly, the order, insofar as appealed from, is modified by providing that the branch of defendant's cross motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the first cause of action is denied.

PESCE, P.J., ALIOTTA and SOLOMON, JJ., concur.


Paul Kenny
Chief Clerk
Decision Date: September 08, 2017

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.