You are here: / / NO PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION UNDER NEW YORK’S MENTAL HEALTH PARITY...
,

NO PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION UNDER NEW YORK’S MENTAL HEALTH PARITY LAW (TIMOTHY’S LAW) (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined that New York’s mental health parity law (Timothy’s Law, Insurance Law 3221(1)(5) and 4303(g)) did not create a private right of action over and above the administrative enforcement provisions. Plaintiff alleged the health insurance benefits administered by defendants were far more restrictive for mental health than for general medical claims:

… [T]he Court of Appeals has held that ” regardless of its consistency with the basic legislative goal, a private right of action should not be judicially sanctioned if it is incompatible with the enforcement mechanism chosen by the Legislature or with some other aspect of the over-all statutory scheme'” … . Thus, where “the legislature clearly contemplated administrative enforcement of the statute, “[t]he question then becomes whether, in addition to administrative enforcement, an implied private right of action would be consistent with the legislative scheme”‘” …  . …

… .[D]eterminations of whether the law had been violated require[] complex, fact-based determinations about medical necessity, and DFS [NYS Department of Financial Services] had implemented a comprehensive system to evaluate appeals following denials of coverage  … . … “[A]llowing people to litigate these issues in court might yield duplicative or inconsistent results” … . Kamins v United Healthcare Ins. Co. of N.Y., Inc., 2019 NY Slip Op 02507, Second Dept 4-3-19

 

You might also like
DEFENDANT WAS REMOVED FROM THE COURTROOM WHEN HE DISRUPTED THE PROCEEDINGS AS THE GUILTY VERDICT WAS BEING DELIVERED; DEFENDANT SHOULD FIRST HAVE BEEN WARNED THAT HE WOULD BE REMOVED IF HE CONTINUED TO DISRUPT THE PROCEEDINGS; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).
Ten Year Adverse Possession Period Began After Ten Year Permissive Use Period Expired
HERE THE VICTIMLESS CRIME DID NOT CONSTITUTE “EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES” WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE “RAISE THE AGE” LEGISLATION; THE PEOPLE’S MOTION TO PREVENT THE REMOVAL OF THE ADOLESCENT OFFENDER’S CASE FROM THE YOUTH PART OF SUPREME COURT TO FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). ​
THE PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT DISMISSING THE OBJECTIONS TO PROBATE ALLEGING LACK OF DUE EXECUTION AND UNDUE INFLUENCE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE AREA WHERE PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL ON ICE WAS CLEANED OR INSPECTED DURING THE THREE DAYS PRIOR TO THE FALL, THEREFORE DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT LACKED CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE ICY CONDITION, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). ​
Speculation About Cause of Fall Required Summary Judgment In Favor of Defendant
IMPROPER CROSS-EXAMINATION OF PLAINTIFF ABOUT HIS STATUS AS A DEFENDANT IN A PENDING LAWSUIT WARRANTED GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR A MISTRIAL (SECOND DEPT).
A COMPRESSOR ROLLING OFF A PALLET JACK ONTO PLAINTIFF’S ANKLE WAS NOT AN ELEVATION-RELATED ACCIDENT COVERED BY LABOR LAW 240 (1), REGULATION-VIOLATION RAISED FOR THE FIRST TIME IN OPPOSITION PAPERS PROPERLY CONSIDERED, CRITERIA FOR LABOR LAW 240 (1), 241 (6) AND 200 CAUSES OF ACTION EXPLAINED IN SOME DETAIL (SECOND DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

IT WAS (HARMLESS) ERROR TO ALLOW THE ARRESTING OFFICER TO TESTIFY THAT DEFENDANT... NOTE HOLDER’S COMPLIANCE WITH NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 NOT DEMONSTRATED,...