March 1, 2019

Scott Chiropractic, P.C. v MVAIC (2019 NY Slip Op 51056(U))

Headnote

MVAIC established that the provider submitted its claim forms more than 45 days after rendering the services at issue. The provider's sole appellate argument challenged that showing. Applying 11 NYCRR 65-1.1 and following Bajaj v MVAIC, the Appellate Term, Second Department, affirmed the order granting MVAIC summary judgment dismissing the complaint and denying the provider's cross motion for summary judgment. The provider demonstrated no basis to disturb the dismissal.

Reported in New York Official Reports at Scott Chiropractic, P.C. v MVAIC (2019 NY Slip Op 51056(U))

[*1]
Scott Chiropractic, P.C. v MVAIC
2019 NY Slip Op 51056(U) [64 Misc 3d 132(A)]
Decided on March 1, 2019
Appellate Term, Second Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
As corrected in part through June 28, 2019; it will not be published in the printed Official Reports.


Decided on March 1, 2019
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 2d, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS

PRESENT: : MICHAEL L. PESCE, P.J., THOMAS P. ALIOTTA, BERNICE D. SIEGAL, JJ
2017-61 K C

Scott Chiropractic, P.C., as Assignee of Francisco Diaz, Appellant,

against

MVAIC, Respondent.


Kopelevich & Feldsherova, P.C. (David Landfair of counsel), for appellant. Marshall & Marshall, PLLC (Jeffrey Kadushin of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (John J. Kelley, J.), entered November 16, 2016. The order granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and denied plaintiff’s cross motion for summary judgment.

ORDERED that the order 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 granted defendant Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corporation’s (sued herein as MVAIC) motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and denied plaintiff’s cross motion for summary judgment.

Contrary to plaintiff’s sole argument on appeal, defendant sufficiently established that plaintiff had failed to submit its claim forms to MVAIC within 45 days after the services at issue had been rendered. As a result, plaintiff has demonstrated no basis to disturb the order granting MVAIC’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint (see 11 NYCRR 65-1.1; Bajaj v MVAIC, 49 Misc 3d 145[A], 2015 NY Slip Op 51661[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2015]).

Accordingly, the order is affirmed.


PESCE, P.J., ALIOTTA and SIEGAL, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Paul Kenny
Chief Clerk
Decision Date: March 01, 2019