From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Vista Surg. Supls. v. N.Y. Cent. Mut.

Appellate Term of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 22, 2009
2009 N.Y. Slip Op. 51031 (N.Y. App. Term 2009)

Opinion

2008-869 K C.

Decided May 22, 2009.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Margaret A. Pui Yee Chan, J.), entered March 25, 2008. The order granted defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Order reversed without costs and defendant's motion for summary judgment denied.

PRESENT: PESCE, P.J., GOLIA and RIOS, JJ.


In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Plaintiff opposed the motion. The Civil Court granted defendant's motion and the instant appeal by plaintiff ensued.

A review of the record indicates that the affidavit of defendant's claims representative failed to demonstrate defendant's prima facie entitlement to summary judgment dismissing the complaint due to a lack of medical necessity. Defendant's supporting affidavit stated that defendant did not receive the claims at issue prior to the commencement of the action while, at the same time, stating that it received the claims on specified dates prior to the commencement of the action and thereafter timely denied same. In view of the foregoing inconsistency, defendant's motion for summary judgment should have been denied ( see Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557).

In any event, as argued by plaintiff in the Civil Court and on appeal, the affirmed peer review reports defendant submitted in support of its motion for summary judgment indicate that the "signature" upon each report appears to be identical, thereby raising an issue of fact as to whether the purported signatures were in compliance with CPLR 2106 ( see General Construction Law § 46; Mani Med., P.C. v Eveready Ins. Co. , 18 Misc 3d 140 [A], 2008 NY Slip Op 50395[U] [App Term, 2d 11th Jud Dists 2008]; Macri v St. Agnes Cemetery, Inc., 44 Misc 2d 702 [Sup Ct, NY County 1965]). Such issue of fact may not be resolved on a motion for summary judgment ( see Seoulbank, NY Agency v D J Export Import Corp., 270 AD2d 193; Dyckman v Barrett, 187 AD2d 553; Mani Med., P.C., 18 Misc 3d 140 [A], 2008 NY Slip Op 50395[U]). Accordingly, the order is reversed and defendant's motion for summary judgment is denied.

Pesce, P.J., Golia and Rios, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Vista Surg. Supls. v. N.Y. Cent. Mut.

Appellate Term of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 22, 2009
2009 N.Y. Slip Op. 51031 (N.Y. App. Term 2009)
Case details for

Vista Surg. Supls. v. N.Y. Cent. Mut.

Case Details

Full title:VISTA SURGICAL SUPPLIES, INC., a/a/o LUZ DELEON, Appellant, v. NEW YORK…

Court:Appellate Term of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: May 22, 2009

Citations

2009 N.Y. Slip Op. 51031 (N.Y. App. Term 2009)