Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Jules Francois PARISIEN, M.D. as Assignee of Gomez-Torres, Ramon A, Plaintiff, v. LANCER INSURANCE CO., Defendant.
Upon application of the parties, as a matter of judicial economy and efficiency, the instant case was heard with similarly situated actions as a joint trial. After Plaintiff rested without making its prima facie case, Defendant made application for directed verdict. The Court granted Defendant's application for directed verdict as the Plaintiff failed to prove their prima facie case by admissible evidence. The parties did not stipulate to each other's prima facie case and Plaintiff failed to produce a witness or any admissible evidence to this Court to establish their prima facie case (see Viviane Etienne Medical Care, P.C. v. Country-Wide Ins. Co., 25 NY3d 498, 14 NYS 3d 283 (Court of Appeals, 2015). Here, the Court of Appeals states, “[w]e reaffirm the long-standing precedent that, in this context, the plaintiff makes a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting evidence, in admissible form, that the prescribed statutory billing forms were mailed to and received by the defendant insurer, which failed to either pay or deny the claim within the prescribed 30—day period” (see 114 AD3d at 35, 977 NYS 2d 292). Plaintiff's argument that as a matter of law previously held decision and order on the rejected Plaintiff's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment which did not explicitly state that Plaintiff was required to put on its prima facie case by omission obviated Plaintiff's making its Prima facie case at Trial, was rejected. Rather, decision and order converted Plaintiff's Cross-Motion to an opposition with no granting of prima facie as an affirmative prayer for relief. Plaintiff's further argument that as a matter of law The Court is required to consider as an exception to the hearsay rule, admissions against its own interest in Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment affidavits and supporting papers, which would establish Plaintiff's prima facie case, is procedurally improper at Trial and thus likewise rejected. Therefore, Plaintiff failed to meet its initial burden for its prima facie case. This Court finds Judgment in favor of Defendant for this instant action and all the similarly situated actions; All Cases Dismissed with Prejudice in This Joint Trial.
This Constitutes Decision and Order at Trial of This Court.
Sandra Elena Roper, J.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: Index No. 739305 /17
Decided: November 14, 2025
Court: Civil Court, City of New York,
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)