Nyack Hosp. v Allstate Ins. Co., 2014 NY Slip Op 00641 (2d Dept. 2014)
(1) “By failing to timely contest, at the claims stage, the adequacy of the claim forms used by the plaintiff Richmond University Medical Center, as assignee of Arnold Sealey, to establish proof of claim, the defendant waived its right to rely on any deficiencies in those forms at the litigation stage”
(2) “Accordingly, by submitting evidence in admissible form that the prescribed statutory billing form had been mailed to and received by the defendant insurer, which failed to either pay or deny the claim within the requisite 30-day period, the plaintiffs established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the second cause of action”
I am wondering what deficiency Defendant raised. I also note that the Court again commented on this when it noted in passing that: “[d]efendant does not contend on appeal that it raised a triable issue of fact in opposition to the plaintiffs’ prima facie showing, but only that the plaintiffs failed to meet their prima facie burden.” This Court is so hard to read sometimes through the innuendo that is at times used.
2 Responses
Sorry Jason, those trio of cases go back to the rule that the submission of a bill and non payment (payment overdue)are sufficient for plaintiff’s prima facie. The worm turns…. sort of.
Bwilliant Jason … oh this is a Wang Chung.
Yes the Cworrupt Cwort is hard to understwand.
Embarrwassing to go agwaisnt own pwrecedent when making deciswion based on effect of undue infwuences.
So Cwort cwreate no pwecedent.