What’s a boy to do?

Promed Durable Equip., Inc. v GEICO Ins., 2013 NY Slip Op 23283 (App. Term 2d Dept. 2013)

(A) The insufficient rebuttal

“In support of the branch of its cross motion seeking summary judgment dismissing so much of the complaint as sought to recover upon a claim for supplies furnished to plaintiff’s assignor on December 16, 2008, defendant submitted a peer review report which set forth a factual basis and medical rationale for the doctor’s determination that there was a lack of medical necessity for these supplies, on the ground, among others, that these supplies were superfluous, given that the assignor had already been involved in a treatment plan which included physical therapy and rehabilitation, which treatment plan, the peer reviewer stated, was sufficient to restore the assignor to the assignor’s pre-accident comfort level. In opposition, plaintiff submitted an affirmation by a doctor which failed to meaningfully refer to, let alone rebut, this determination”

(B) Errant Attorney

“In the instant case, the brief submitted on respondent’s behalf contained, among other things, pages denominated “Table of Authorities” and “Summary of the Argument” that merely state that these pages were “left blank intentionally.” The “Question Presented” stated only “WHAT’S A BOY TO DO?” The remainder of the respondent’s brief did not address the facts of this case or interpose any specific argument as to why the order from which defendant appealed should be affirmed. Based upon the above, and other statements in the respondent’s brief, we order Jonathan R. Vitarelli, Esq., Ilona Finkelshteyn, Esq., and counsel for defendant, to show cause why an order should or should not be made and entered imposing sanctions and costs, if any, against Jonathan R. Vitarelli, Esq., and Ilona Finkelshteyn, Esq.”

What’s a boy to do?  Well, “Girls just want to have fun”.

(C) From another blogger out there:  My Case

Related Articles

• Why Conclusory Affidavits Fail: Building Strong Opposition to Medical Necessity Summary Judgment Motions
• Effective Peer Review Rebuttals in New York No-Fault Insurance Cases
• Why Poorly Drafted Medical Affidavits Fail Against Insurance Medical Necessity Motions
• Plaintiff’s conclusory affidavit is insufficient to defeat an insurance carrier’s lack of medical necessity motion
• New York No-Fault Insurance Law

Legal Update (February 2026): Since 2013, New York’s no-fault regulations have undergone several amendments affecting medical necessity standards, peer review procedures, and evidentiary requirements for rebuttal submissions. Additionally, fee schedules and documentation requirements for durable medical equipment claims have been revised multiple times. Practitioners should verify current provisions under 11 NYCRR Part 65 and recent decisional law when handling similar medical necessity disputes and summary judgment motions.