A.B. Chiropractic, P.C. v Utica Mut. Ins. Co. |
2009 NY Slip Op 51022(U) [23 Misc 3d 141(A)] |
Decided on May 22, 2009 |
Appellate Term, Second Department |
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. |
This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports. |
Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Diane A.
Lebedeff, J.), entered October 24, 2007, deemed from a judgment of the same court entered
December 9, 2007 (see CPLR 5501 [c]). The judgment, entered pursuant to the October 24, 2007
order granting plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of
$1,218.13.
Judgment reversed without costs, order granting plaintiff's motion for summary judgment vacated and plaintiff's motion for summary judgment denied.
In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, plaintiff moved
for summary judgment. In opposition to the motion, defendant argued, inter alia, that it
possessed a founded belief that the injuries allegedly sustained by plaintiff's assignor did not
arise out of an insured incident. The Civil Court granted
plaintiff's motion. The instant appeal by defendant ensued. A judgment was subsequently
entered (see CPLR 5501 [c]).
The sole issued raised on appeal is whether defendant proffered sufficient evidence to demonstrate that there was an issue of fact as to whether the injuries plaintiff's assignor allegedly sustained arose from an insured incident (see Central Gen. Hosp. v Chubb Group of Ins. Cos., 90 NY2d 195, 199 [1997]). Upon a review of the record, we find that the documents submitted in opposition to plaintiff's motion, including the affirmation of defendant's attorney, the copies of [*2]transcripts of witness statements and testimony, as well as the affidavits of defendant's no-fault specialist and investigator, were sufficient to demonstrate that defendant's defense of lack of coverage was "premised on the fact or founded belief that the alleged injur[ies] do[] not arise out of an insured incident" (Central Gen. Hosp. at 199). Accordingly, the judgment is reversed, the order granting plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is vacated and plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is denied.
Golia and Steinhardt, JJ., concur.
Weston, J.P., dissents in a separate memorandum.
Weston, J.P., dissents and votes to affirm the judgment in the following memorandum.
I find that the documents submitted in opposition to plaintiff's motion were insufficient to
demonstrate that defendant's defense of lack of coverage was "premised on the fact or founded
belief that the alleged injur[ies] do[] not arise out of an insured incident" (Central Gen. Hosp.
v Chubb Group of Ins. Cos., 90 NY2d 195, 199 [1997]). Thus, the judgment should be
affirmed.
Decision Date: May 22, 2009