You can find them here.
From the looks of it, Dan Medical is in full effect; several recently decided cases cite it:
Fortune Med., P.C. v Allstate Ins. Co., 2007 NYSlipOp 50243(U); Vista Surgical Supplies, Inc. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 2007 NYSlipOp 50245(U); Delta Diagnostic Radiology, P.C. v Allstate Ins. Co.,2007 NYSlipOp 50246(U).; Fair Price Med. Supply Corp. v Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 2007 NYSlipOp 50237(U); Delta Diagnostic Radiology, P.C. v American Tr. Ins. Co.2007 NYSlipOp 50238(U).
The Appellate Term, Second Department, in a strange set of facts (well, not really) held that
where the sole officer, director, and shareholder of a P.C. dies, the P.C. dies along with it:
In the instant case, upon the death of Zinn, plaintiff continued to exist (see e.g. Business Corporation Law § 1510), but, for all practical purposes, it was powerless to proceed with this action. There was no one with the authority to, inter alia, execute the substitution of counsel, retain new counsel, or authorize the filing of the notice of appeal and the prosecution of the appeal. Upon his death, Zinn’s shares in plaintiff became an asset of his estate and this record does not establish that any of the actions involved herein were authorized by someone with the authority to do so (see Business Corporation Law §§ 1507, 1511; see also Matter of Leonard, 199 Misc 138 [1950], affd 278 App Div 668 [1951]; 38 NY Jur 2d, Decedents’ Estates §§ 53, 1510, 1513, 1521, and 1532).
The cite is Ocean Diagnostic Imaging, P.C. v Merchants Mut. Ins. Co., 2007 NYSlipOp 27056.
In an interesting IME no-show case, Celtic Med. P.C. v NY Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 2007 NYSlipOp 27057, the Court held:
Since plaintiff raised no issue as to the sufficiency of defendant’s proof of plaintiff’s assignor’s nonappearance at the IMEs, we do not pass on the propriety of the motion court’s determination with respect thereto. To the extent that the court below concluded that there was a question of fact regarding the reason for plaintiff’s assignor’s nonappearance at the IMEs, we note that there is no support in the record for such finding. Accordingly, defendant was entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
This begs the question: What if Plaintiff had raised an issue with Defendant’s proof as to the no
show?
Over in Brooklyn Civil, New York Massage Therapy P.C. v State Farm Mut. Ins. Co, 2006 NY Slip Op 52573(U), allowed a Notice to Admit to establish Plaintiff’s prima facie case.
With regard to Plaintiff’s Notice to Admit, the Court notes that the purpose of a Notice to Admit is to eliminate from the issues in litigation matters which will not be in dispute at trial. Desilva v. Rosenberg, 236 AD2d 508, 645 NYS2d 30 (2d Dept. 1997); Miller v. Hillman Kelly Co. 578 NYS2d 319 {177 AD2d 1036} (4th Dept. 1991). Defendant’s denial of Plaintiff’s claim is based on Plaintiff’s failure to appear for a scheduled EUO pursuant to a subpoena and lack of coverage based on fraud in that the accident was staged. In an action for first-party no-fault benefits, the Plaintiff establishes its prima facie burden by proof that it submitted a claim setting forth the facts, the amount of the loss sustained, and that payment of no-fault benefits is overdue. Mary Immaculate Hosp. v. Allstate Ins. Co., 5 AD3d 742 [2004]; Amaze Med. Supply v. Eagle Ins. Co. 2 Misc 3d 128 [A], 2003 NY Slip Op 51701[U] [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists]; Damadian MRI in Elmhurst v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 2 Misc 3d 128[A], 2003 NY Slip Op 51700[U] [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists]). The Court finds that Plaintiff established its prima facie case with the submission of its Notice to Admit.
The court also found that Defendants evidence that a staged accident occured was lacking. It’s
worth reading. no fault law no fault law no fault law no fault law no fault law no fault law no fault decisions no fault recent decisions no fault no fault no fault no fault no fault florida