Key Takeaway
Court procedural order granting extension to file reply brief in no-fault insurance case between medical provider and GEICO, showing typical appellate timeline management.
Understanding Court Procedural Orders in No-Fault Insurance Cases
Legal proceedings often involve strict deadlines and procedural requirements that must be carefully managed. This case illustrates a common scenario in no-fault insurance litigation where attorneys need additional time to prepare and file court documents. The procedural aspects of prima facie cases can be complex, requiring thorough preparation of legal briefs.
The case involves a medical provider challenging a no-fault insurance company’s actions through the appellate process. When establishing a prima facie burden, practitioners must ensure all procedural deadlines are met to preserve their clients’ rights. Understanding how different appellate departments handle these matters is crucial for effective representation.
Jason Tenenbaum’s Analysis:
You will have to wait.
Matter of Andrew Carothers, M.D., P.C. v Geico Indemnity Co., 2010 NY Slip Op 72075(U)(2d Dept. 2010)
| In the Matter of Andrew Carothers, M.D., P.C., appellant, v GEICO Indemnity Company, respondent. (Index No. 1829/07) | ORDER ON APPLICATION |
Application by the appellant pursuant to 22 NYCRR 670.8(d)(2) to enlarge the time to serve and file a reply brief on an appeal, by permission, from an order of the Appellate Term of the Supreme Court, Second, Eleventh, and Thirteenth Judicial Districts, dated July 14, 2009.
ORDERED that the application is granted and the reply brief shall be served and filed on or before June 2, 2010.
ENTER:
Key Takeaway
This procedural order demonstrates the Second Department’s approach to managing appellate deadlines in no-fault insurance disputes. The court’s willingness to grant reasonable extensions allows practitioners adequate time to prepare comprehensive legal arguments, which is essential when prima facie cases can be lost due to procedural missteps.
