July 16, 2012

Canarsie Med. Health, P.C. v MVAIC (2012 NY Slip Op 51305(U))

Headnote

Two providers sued MVAIC for first-party no-fault benefits, and the Civil Court denied MVAIC's motion for summary judgment and granted the plaintiffs' cross motion. The Appellate Term, First Department, found that the plaintiffs made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment. However, MVAIC's opposition raised a triable issue whether the injuries arose from a hit-and-run accident, which would require the assignor to give notice to a police, peace or judicial officer within 24 hours under Insurance Law 5208(a)(2)(A). The court modified the order by denying the plaintiffs' summary judgment motion and otherwise affirmed.

Reported in New York Official Reports at Canarsie Med. Health, P.C. v MVAIC (2012 NY Slip Op 51305(U))

[*1]
Canarsie Med. Health, P.C. v MVAIC
2012 NY Slip Op 51305(U) [36 Misc 3d 133(A)]
Decided on July 16, 2012
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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 July 16, 2012
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, FIRST DEPARTMENT

PRESENT: Shulman, J.P., Hunter, Jr., Torres, JJ
570045/12.

Canarsie Medical Health, P.C. and Rally Chiropractic, P.C., a/a/o Alfonzo Johnson, Plaintiffs-Respondents, – –

against

MVAIC, Defendant-Appellant.


Defendant appeals from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Bronx County (Fernando Tapia, J.), entered March 23, 2011, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and granted plaintiffs’ cross motion for summary judgment.


Per Curiam.

Order (Fernando Tapia, J.), entered March 23, 2011, modified by denying plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment; as modified, order affirmed, with $10 costs.

Plaintiffs made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on their complaint seeking to recover first-party no-fault benefits (see New York Hosp. Med. Ctr. of Queens v Motor Veh. Acc. Indem. Corp., 12 AD3d 429 [2004], lv denied 4 NY3d 705 [2005]). However, defendant’s submissions in opposition were sufficient to raise a triable issue as to whether the injuries arose from a hit-and-run accident, thus triggering plaintiffs’ assignor’s obligation to provide notice of the accident “to a police, peace or judicial officer” within 24 hours of the occurrence (Insurance Law § 5208[a][2][A]; see Matter of Pagan v Motor Veh. Acc. Indem. Corp., 82 AD3d 1102 [2011]).
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.
Decision Date: July 16, 2012