Matter of American Ind. Ins. Co. v Nova Acupuncture PC
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Matter of American Ind. Ins. Co. v Nova Acupuncture PC 2018 NY Slip Op 30850(U) January 22, 2018 Supreme Court, Kings County Docket Number: 505666/2014 Judge: Carl J. Landicino Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York State and local government sources, including the New York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. [*FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 02/02/2018 1] INDEX NO. 505666/2014 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 71 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/07/2018 At an IAS Term, Part 81 of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, held in and for the County of Kings, at the Courthouse, at 360 Adams Street, Brooklyn, New York, on the 22nd day of January, 2018. PRESENT: HON. CARL J. LANDICINO. JSC - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - • - - - • - - • - - - - -X In the matter of the Application AMERICAN INDEPENDENT INSURANCE CO., Petitioner, - against NOV A ACUPUNCTURE PC, ART OF HEALING MEDICINE, PC, KJC CHIROPRACTIC, LLC, and ABC PHYSICAL THERAPY, P.C., a/o Henry Makinson (AAA #412011023536), Rosana Jacques (AAA #41201102897), Samuel Hawkins (AAA #41201102451), and Elin Cardichon (AAA #412011023524), Index No. 505666/2014 DECISION AND ORDER AFTER HEARING Respondents . • • - • - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - •••••• - •• - •• - -X Yilo J. Kang, Esq Freiberg, Peck & Kang, LLP Attorneys for Petitioner 200 Business Park, Drive Armonk, N.Y. 10504 Amos Weinberg, Esq. Attorney for Respondent 49 Somerset Drive South Great Neck, N.Y. 11020 Pursuant to the Decision and Order of the Appellate Division, Second Department, in relation to an underlying Order (April 6, 2015) of the Honorable Justice David Schmidt, retired, by which Petitioner's Petition was denied, this Court held a hearing on a framed "issue of whether [Petitioner] controls, is controlled by, or is under common control by or with an authorized insurer and, thereafter, for a new determination of the petition". At the hearing of this matter on January 19, 2018 the petitioner represented that it had no witnesses and no evidence to proffer. The Petitioner requested that this Court reconsider the holding of the Appellate Division in that it believed that the framed issue was not appropriate. Petitioner thereafter conceded that it had the burden of proof in relation to the framed issue before the Court. Petitioner then rested. Page -1- 1 of 2 CJ [*FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 02/02/2018 2] NYSCEF DOC. NO. 71 INDEX NO. 505666/2014 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/07/2018 The Respondents thereafter moved for a directed verdict. That application was reserved. Respondent thereafter rested. Petitioner's request that this Court reconsider the holding of the Appellate Division is without merit. It is the Appellate Division that is empowered to review the judgment or order of this Court. This Court is subject to the detennination and/or direction of the Appellate Division, not the reverse. See New York State Constitution Article JV §§ 4 and 5. Accordingly, the request by the Petitioner is denied. In as much as Petitioner bas admittedly failed to proffer any testimony or documentary evidence in relation to the framed issue, Petitioner has failed to meet its prima facie burden. The Appellate Division bas held that a resolution of the framed issue is necessary for a determination of the subject petition. As such Respondent's application for a directed verdict is granted. Accordingly, the Petition is denied. The foregoing constitutes the Decision and Order of the Court. ENTER: ~ :;x = ..,,n ..,., ...... a:> I N z C> (/) _o re: [Tl::Z ,,.. . a:;! ::z: ... ':.....& UI :-.i Page -2- 2 of 2 ("') r ,.,, :;;o :;x
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.
