Citywide Acupuncture Servs., P.L.L.C. v Clarendon Natl. Ins. Co.

Annotate this Case
[*1] Citywide Acupuncture Servs., P.L.L.C. v Clarendon Natl. Ins. Co. 2017 NY Slip Op 51233(U) Decided on September 22, 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 22, 2017
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 2d, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : MICHAEL L. PESCE, P.J., THOMAS P. ALIOTTA, MARTIN SOLOMON, JJ
2014-975 K C

Citywide Acupuncture Services, P.L.L.C., as Assignee of Priscilla De Jesus, Respondent,

against

Clarendon National Insurance Company, Appellant.

Law Offices of Moira Doherty, P.C. (Janice P. Rosen, Esq.), for appellant. Christopher S. Cardillo, P.C., for respondent (no brief filed).

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Devin P. Cohen, J.), entered September 15, 2013. The order, insofar as appealed from and as limited by the brief, denied the branch of defendant's cross motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the complaint based on plaintiff's untimely submission of the claim.

ORDERED that the order, insofar as appealed from, is affirmed, with $25 costs.

In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, defendant appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order as denied the branch of defendant's cross motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the complaint based on plaintiff's untimely submission of the claim at issue.

Contrary to defendant's argument on appeal, the Civil Court properly found that, on this record, there is a triable issue of fact as to whether plaintiff had timely submitted the claim at issue (see St. Vincent's Hosp. of Richmond v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 50 AD3d 1123 [2008]).

Accordingly, the order, insofar as appealed from, is affirmed.

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


ENTER:
Paul Kenny
Chief Clerk
Decision Date: September 22, 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.