Kings County Personal Injury 143
The plaintiffs in the case are Progressive Max Insurance Company, Progressive Preferred Insurance Company, and Progressive Specialty Insurance Company. There are several defendants in the case, claims one through eight individual defendants.
Case Results The plaintiffs have an entry of default against the defendants, from groups one through eight of the individual defendants in the case. The motion by the plaintiffs is pursuant of CPLR 3215(a). The plaintiff has proven jurisdiction by annexing copies of the affidavits of service from the summons and the complaints that have been made by the defendants. These affidavits prove the defendants default in the affirmation of counsel. The plaintiff issues a supporting affidavit to prove these claims.
A New York Injury Lawyer said that based on the evidence provided by the plaintiff, the court orders that the plaintiff is not contractually obligated to defend, provide indemnity coverage, or provide liability coverage in any future or pending personal injury or property damages. Additionally, the plaintiff does not have the obligation to provide coverage for any claims of uninsured motorist or no fault motorist coverage that is made by any of the defendants in this group.
The plaintiff withdraws the portion of its motion that sought a time extension and substituted service for the following defendants: Antoine Emmanuel, Spencer Vtxama, Rashed Mohammed, George Brathwaite, Keith Johnson, Herold Pierre, Jefferson Etienne, Junior Pierre, Demetri Alie, Jovany King, Luis Hernandez, Stanley Joseph, Eddie Aristhene, Rosento Gonzalez, Allister Sylvester, Tony Auguste, Menalo Luxana, Nora Alverez, Walter Anderson, Joy Christina Kaiser, Ketan Vora, and William Todd Pordy.
The plaintiff also received and executed the Stipulation of Discontinuance with Prejudices to the defendants Vincenza Scandiffio and Regina Scandiffio and withdraws this portion of their motion as well.
A Bronx Personal Injury Lawyer said the plaintiff is seeking a summary judgment in their favor against the defendant Ozone Park Medical Healthcare and the defendant opposes this motion.
The plaintiff submits that the defendant Ozone denied having any information or knowledge to form a belief as to the allegations in the verified complaint. This includes a paragraph in the complaint that alleges the defendant, Ozone, submitted a request for a no-fault reimbursement for the individuals that were involved in the loss of Eddie Aristhene in August of 2009. A Brooklyn Criminal Lawyer said the plaintiff makes the argument that they defendant does not even know that it submitted the claim treatment, which defines this as a “sham loss” and therefore entitles the plaintiff to a summary judgment.
The defendant, Ozone, argues that the plaintiff has failed to establish that they are not entitled to the no fault medical benefits from the plaintiff for the services that were provided to its assignors as stated by law.
The court rules that in this case the plaintiff has demonstrated prima facie in this case against the defendant. Since the plaintiff has demonstrated prima facie, the burden now falls to the defendant to come up with confident evidence proving triable issues exist.
The court has found that the defendant, Ozone, has offered no evidence to support their claims and thus provided no proof of triable evidence against the plaintiff. For this reason, the court finds in favor of the plaintiff and grants the summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff and dismissed the case from Ozone.
If you find yourself in a legal situation, whether you have been in a car accident, a victim of negligence or medical malpractice, Stephen Bilkis & Associates can help you determine the type of legal action that you may be able to pursue. Our team of lawyers understands the law and the issues that you may have and will work with you do make sure things come out in your best interests. Our offices are conveniently located throughout the NY metropolitan area. You may call us for a free consultation.