Summary
In Yklik, Inc. v. Electric Ins. Co. (36 Misc.3d 131 [A], 2012 NY Slip Op 51287[U], *1-2 [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Dists 2012]), the term used was "failed to meaningfully refer to, let alone rebut," without the word "discuss."
Summary of this case from Am. Transit Ins. Co. v. Right Choice Supply, Inc.Opinion
No. 2009–1566KC.
2012-06-28
YKLIK, INC. as Assignee of Trevare White, Respondent, v. ELECTRIC INSURANCE CO., Appellant.
Present WESTON, J.P., PESCE and ALIOTTA, JJ.
Appeal from an order the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Lisa S. Ottley, J.), entered April 14, 2009. The order, insofar as appealed from as limited by the brief, denied defendant's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
ORDERED that the order, insofar as appealed from, is reversed, without costs, and defendant's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted.
In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, plaintiff moved for summary judgment and defendant cross-moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The Civil Court found that plaintiff and defendant had established their prima facie cases and that the sole issue for trial was the medical necessity of the supplies provided to plaintiff's assignor. Defendant appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of the order as denied its cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
In support of its cross motion, defendant submitted, among other things, affirmed peer review reports, each of which set forth a factual basis and medical rationale for the respective doctor's determination that there was a lack of medical necessity for the supplies provided. In opposition to the cross motion, plaintiff submitted an affirmation from a doctor, which failed to meaningfully refer to, let alone rebut, the conclusions set forth in the peer review reports ( see Pan Chiropractic, P.C. v. Mercury Ins. Co., 24 Misc.3d 136[A], 2009 N.Y. Slip Op 51495[U] [App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2009] ). As plaintiff has not challenged the Civil Court's finding, in effect, that defendant is otherwise entitled to judgment, defendant's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted ( see Delta Diagnostic Radiology, P.C. v. Integon Natl. Ins. Co., 24 Misc.3d 136[A], 2009 N.Y. Slip Op 51502[U] [App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2009]; Delta Diagnostic Radiology, P.C. v. American Tr. Ins. Co., 18 Misc.3d 128[A], 2007 N.Y. Slip Op 52455[U] [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2007]; A. Khodadadi Radiology, P.C. v. N.Y. Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 16 Misc.3d 131[A], 2007 N.Y. Slip Op 51342[U] [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2007] ).
Accordingly, the order, insofar as appealed from, is reversed and defendant's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted.