Sharp View Diagnostic Imaging, P.C. v GEICO Gen. Ins. Co.

Annotate this Case
[*1] Sharp View Diagnostic Imaging, P.C. v GEICO Gen. Ins. Co. 2018 NY Slip Op 51702(U) Decided on November 23, 2018 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 November 23, 2018
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 2d, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : MICHAEL L. PESCE, P.J., THOMAS P. ALIOTTA, DAVID ELLIOT, JJ
2017-590 K C

Sharp View Diagnostic Imaging, P.C., as Assignee of Monique Simpson, Respondent,

against

GEICO General Insurance Company, Appellant.

Law Office of Goldstein & Flecker (Lawrence J. Chanice of counsel), for appellant. Fuld & Karp, P.C. (Cheryl Scher of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal from a judgment of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Robin Kelly Sheares, J.), entered February 17, 2016. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $1,791.73.

ORDERED that the judgment is reversed, with $30 costs, and the matter is remitted to the Civil Court for a new trial.

At a nonjury trial of this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, the sole issue was the medical necessity of the services in question. The Civil Court precluded the testimony of defendant's expert witness and granted plaintiff's motion for a directed verdict. Defendant appeals from the judgment that was subsequently entered in favor of plaintiff in the principal sum of $1,791.73.

For the reasons stated in Nova Chiropractic Servs., P.C., as Assignee of Miguel A. Vizcaino v GEICO Gen. Ins. Co. (__ Misc 3d ___, 2018 NY Slip Op _____ [appeal No. 2016-1054 K C], decided herewith), the judgment is reversed and the matter is remitted to the Civil Court for a new trial.

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



ENTER:
Paul Kenny
Chief Clerk
Decision Date: November 23, 2018

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.