August 24, 2012

Li-Elle Servs., Inc. v Motor Veh. Acc. Indem. Corp. (2012 NY Slip Op 51588(U))

Headnote

A provider sued MVAIC for first-party no-fault benefits, and MVAIC moved for summary judgment on the ground that the assignor was not a qualified person entitled to no-fault coverage. The Civil Court denied the motion. The Appellate Term, First Department, held that MVAIC failed in its burden to establish prima facie that the assignor was not a qualified person. Because MVAIC did not meet its initial burden, summary dismissal was properly denied regardless of the sufficiency of the plaintiff's opposition, and the order was affirmed.

Reported in New York Official Reports at Li-Elle Servs., Inc. v Motor Veh. Acc. Indem. Corp. (2012 NY Slip Op 51588(U))

[*1]
Li-Elle Servs., Inc. v Motor Veh. Acc. Indem. Corp.
2012 NY Slip Op 51588(U) [36 Misc 3d 144(A)]
Decided on August 24, 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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 August 24, 2012
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, FIRST DEPARTMENT

PRESENT: Shulman, J.P., Hunter, Jr., Torres, JJ
12-110.

Li-Elle Services, Inc. a/a/o Esperanza Gil, Plaintiff-Respondent, – –

against

Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corp., Defendant-Appellant.


Defendant appeals from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Bronx County (Fernando Tapia, J.), entered March 4, 2011, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.


Per Curiam.

Order (Fernando Tapia, J.), entered March 4, 2011, affirmed, with $10 costs.

The action, seeking recovery of no-fault first-party benefits, is not ripe for summary dismissal, since defendant MVAIC failed in its burden to establish, prima facie, that plaintiff’s assignor was not a “qualified person” entitled to no-fault coverage (see Englingtom Med. PC v Motor Veh. Acc. Indem. Corp., 81 AD3d 223, 229 [2011]; Matter of MVAIC v Interboro Med. Care & Diagnostic, PC, 73 AD3d 667 [2010]; Omega Diagnostic Imaging, P.C. v MVAIC, 29 Misc 3d 129[A], 2010 NY Slip Op 51779[U][2010]). Given defendant’s failure to meet its initial burden of demonstrating entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, summary dismissal of the complaint was properly denied irrespective of the sufficiency of plaintiff’s opposition (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.
Decision Date: August 24, 2012