Mingmen Acupuncture Servs., PC v Global Liberty Ins. Co. of N.Y.
2018 NY Slip Op 51358(U) [61 Misc 3d 128(A)]
Decided on September 26, 2018
Appellate Term, First Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on September 26, 2018
PRESENT: Ling-Cohan, J.P., Gonzalez, Cooper, JJ.

Mingmen Acupuncture Services, PC, a/a/o Sergio Castelan, Plaintiff-Respondent,


Global Liberty Insurance Company of New York, Defendant-Appellant.

Defendant, as limited by its brief, appeals from so much of an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County (Debra Rose Samuels, J.), entered September 28, 2017, as denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Per Curiam.

Order (Debra Rose Samuels, J.), entered September 28, 2017, insofar as appealed from, reversed, with $10 costs, motion granted, and the complaint dismissed. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.

The defendant-insurer made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that it timely denied plaintiff's first-party no-fault claims based on a sworn independent examination report [IME] of its examining acupuncturist/chiropractor, which set forth a factual basis and medical rationale for her stated conclusion that the assignor's injuries were resolved and that there was no need for further acupuncture treatment (see Rummel G. Mendoza, D.C., P.C. v Chubb Indem. Ins. Co., 47 Misc 3d 156[A], 2015 NY Slip Op 50900[U][App Term, 1st Dept 2015]); Utica Acupuncture, P.C. v Interboro Ins. Co., 39 Misc 3d 139[A], 2013 NY Slip Op 50643[U] [App Term, 1st Dept 2013]).

In opposition, the affidavit of plaintiff's principal failed to raise a triable issue since it was not based on an examination of the assignor, nor did it meaningfully rebut the findings of defendant's examining acupuncturist/chiropractor, including the normal results of the range of motion testing (see Arnica Acupuncture PC v Interboard Ins. Co., 137 AD3d 421 [2016]; Rummel G. Mendoza, D.C., P.C. v Chubb Indem. Ins. Co., 47 Misc 3d 156[A]). Nor did the assignor's subjective complaints of pain overcome the objective medical tests detailed in the IME report (see Arnica Acupuncture PC v Interboard Ins. Co., 137 AD3d 421; TC Acupuncture, P.C. v Tri-State Consumer Ins. Co., 52 Misc 3d 131[A], 2016 NY Slip Op 50978[U] [App Term, 1st Dept 2016]).


I concur I concur I concur

Decision Date: September 26, 2018