August 7, 2012

Central Radiology Servs., P.C. v MVAIC (2012 NY Slip Op 51624(U))

Headnote

A provider sued MVAIC for assigned first-party no-fault benefits and obtained summary judgment for $1,791.73, and MVAIC had received a sworn notice of intention to make claim. On appeal, MVAIC argued that the assignor was not a qualified person because she had not given MVAIC a household affidavit. The Appellate Term, Second Department, held that this argument lacked merit because a person's status as a qualified person under Insurance Law 5202(b) does not depend on MVAIC's receipt of a household affidavit. The judgment for the plaintiff was affirmed.

Reported in New York Official Reports at Central Radiology Servs., P.C. v MVAIC (2012 NY Slip Op 51624(U))

[*1]
Central Radiology Servs., P.C. v MVAIC
2012 NY Slip Op 51624(U) [36 Misc 3d 146(A)]
Decided on August 7, 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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 August 7, 2012
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 2d, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS

PRESENT: : PESCE, P.J., RIOS and ALIOTTA, JJ
2010-2936 Q C.

Central Radiology Services, P.C. as Assignee of BELINDA GUZMAN, Respondent, —

against

MVAIC, Appellant.


Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Richard G. Latin, J.), entered October 4, 2010, deemed from a judgment of the same court entered November 4, 2010 (see CPLR 5501 [c]). The judgment, entered pursuant to the October 4, 2010 order granting plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and denying defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $1,791.73.


ORDERED that the judgment 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 from an order which granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and denied defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. A judgment was subsequently entered, from which the appeal is deemed to have been taken (see CPLR 5501 [c]).

On appeal, defendant contends that, although it had received a sworn notice of intention to make claim form (see Insurance Law § 5208), plaintiff was not entitled to summary judgment because plaintiff’s assignor was not a qualified person since she had failed to provide defendant with a household affidavit. Defendant’s argument lacks merit because plaintiff’s assignor’s status as a qualified person is not dependent upon defendant’s receipt of a household affidavit (see [*2]Insurance Law § 5202 [b]; Farragut Corner Med., P.C. v MVAIC, 32 Misc 3d 137[A], 2011 NY Slip Op 51529[U] [App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2011]; Liberty Orthopedics, PLLC v MVAIC, 20 Misc 3d 136[A], 2008 NY Slip Op 51533[U] [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2008]; see generally New York Hosp. Med. Ctr. of Queens v Motor Veh. Acc. Indem. Corp., 12 AD3d 429 [2004]). Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

Pesce, P.J., Rios and Aliotta, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: August 07, 2012