April 2, 2012

Five Boro Psychological Servs., P.C. v MVAIC (2012 NY Slip Op 50578(U))

Headnote

A provider sued MVAIC for assigned first-party no-fault benefits and was granted summary judgment on its cross motion. MVAIC argued that there was an issue of fact as to whether the assignor's injuries resulted from a motor vehicle accident. Its only proof was an uncertified police report that merely recorded a hearsay statement. The Appellate Term held that this showing was insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact and affirmed.

Reported in New York Official Reports at Five Boro Psychological Servs., P.C. v MVAIC (2012 NY Slip Op 50578(U))

[*1]
Five Boro Psychological Servs., P.C. v MVAIC
2012 NY Slip Op 50578(U) [35 Misc 3d 127(A)]
Decided on April 2, 2012
Appellate Term, Second 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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 April 2, 2012
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 2d, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS

PRESENT: : PESCE, P.J., WESTON and RIOS, JJ
2010-1598 K C.

Five Boro Psychological Services, P.C. as Assignee of YURIY DOROFIY, Respondent, —

against

MVAIC, Appellant.


Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Wavny Toussaint, J.), entered October 30, 2009. The order, insofar as appealed from as limited by the brief, granted plaintiff’s cross motion for summary judgment.


ORDERED that the order, insofar as appealed from, is affirmed, without costs.

In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, defendant Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corporation (sued herein as MVAIC) appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order as granted plaintiff’s cross motion for summary judgment.

MVAIC contends that there is an issue of fact as to whether plaintiff’s assignor’s injuries were the result of a motor vehicle accident. MVAIC’s sole proof in support of its contention consisted of an uncertified copy of a police report, which merely recorded a hearsay statement. Contrary to MVAIC’s contention, this showing was insufficient to demonstrate the existence of a triable issue of fact. Accordingly, the order, insofar as appealed from, is affirmed (cf. Matter of Manhattan & Bronx Surface Tr. Operating Auth. (Gholson), 71 AD2d 1004 [1979]).

Pesce, P.J., Weston and Rios, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: April 02, 2012