August 31, 2012

Ranbow Supply of N.Y., Inc. v MVAIC (2012 NY Slip Op 51719(U))

Headnote

A provider sued MVAIC to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits. MVAIC showed that no timely sworn notice of claim had been filed and that leave to file a late notice had not been sought under Insurance Law 5208. The Appellate Term, Second Department, held that the assignor was therefore not a covered person under Insurance Law 5221(b)(2). It concluded that a condition precedent to applying for no-fault benefits from MVAIC had not been satisfied, so the complaint was dismissed.

Reported in New York Official Reports at Ranbow Supply of N.Y., Inc. v MVAIC (2012 NY Slip Op 51719(U))

[*1]
Ranbow Supply of N.Y., Inc. v MVAIC
2012 NY Slip Op 51719(U) [36 Misc 3d 154(A)]
Decided on August 31, 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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 31, 2012
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 2d, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS

PRESENT: : PESCE, P.J., RIOS and ALIOTTA, JJ
2011-575 K C.

Ranbow Supply of NY, Inc. as Assignee of NAZIR MOHAMMED, Appellant, —

against

MVAIC, Respondent.


Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Reginald A. Boddie, J.), entered September 16, 2010, deemed from a judgment of the same court entered January 20, 2011 (see CPLR 5501 [c]). The judgment, entered pursuant to the September 16, 2010 order denying plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and granting defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment, dismissed the complaint.


ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, with $25 costs.

In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Civil Court which denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and granted a cross motion by defendant Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corporation (sued herein as MVAIC) 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]).

Since MVAIC established that there had been no timely filing of a notice of claim and that leave had not been sought to file a late notice of claim (see Insurance Law § 5208 [a], [c]), plaintiff’s assignor is not a covered person (see Insurance Law § 5221 [b] [2]) and, thus, a condition precedent to plaintiff’s right to apply for payment of no-fault benefits from MVAIC has not been satisfied (Five Boro Psychological Servs., P.C. v MVAIC, 35 Misc 3d 133[A], 2012 NY Slip Op 50751[U] [App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2012]; M.N.M. Med. Health Care, [*2]P.C. v MVAIC, 22 Misc 3d 128[A], 2009 NY Slip Op 50041[U] [App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2009]). Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

Pesce, P.J., Rios and Aliotta, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: August 31, 2012