July 12, 2019

Natural Therapy Acupuncture, P.C. v MVAIC (2019 NY Slip Op 51159(U))

Headnote

MVAIC established that the provider commenced its action after the three-year statute of limitations expired. The provider moved for summary judgment on its assigned no-fault claims, and MVAIC cross-moved to dismiss on limitations and other grounds. MVAIC's cross-moving papers made a prima facie showing of untimeliness, and the provider failed to raise a factual issue in opposition. The Appellate Term, Second Department, affirmed the order denying the provider's motion and granting MVAIC's cross motion, following Kings Highway Diagnostic Imaging, P.C. v MVAIC.

Reported in New York Official Reports at Natural Therapy Acupuncture, P.C. v MVAIC (2019 NY Slip Op 51159(U))

[*1]
Natural Therapy Acupuncture, P.C. v MVAIC
2019 NY Slip Op 51159(U) [64 Misc 3d 136(A)]
Decided on July 12, 2019
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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 July 12, 2019
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 2d, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS

PRESENT: : MICHAEL L. PESCE, P.J., MICHELLE WESTON, THOMAS P. ALIOTTA, JJ
2017-742 K C

Natural Therapy Acupuncture, P.C., as Assignee of Bishop, Junior, Appellant,

against

MVAIC, Respondent.


The Rybak Firm, PLLC (Damin J. Toell of counsel), for appellant. Marshall & Marshall, PLLC (Barbara Carabell of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Devin P. Cohen, J.), entered December 15, 2016. The order denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and granted defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

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

In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, plaintiff moved for summary judgment, and defendant Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corporation (sued herein as MVAIC) cross-moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground, among others, that the action had been commenced after the statute of limitations had expired. The Civil Court denied plaintiff’s motion and granted defendant’s cross motion.

MVAIC’s cross-moving papers established, prima facie, that the action had been commenced after the expiration of the three-year statute of limitations (see Kings Highway Diagnostic Imaging, P.C. v MVAIC, 19 Misc 3d 69 [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2008]; see also 6D Farm Corp. v Carr, 63 AD3d 903 [2009]; Island ADC, Inc. v Baldassano Architectural Group, P.C., 49 AD3d 815 [2008]; Delta Diagnostic Radiology, P.C. v MVAIC, 44 Misc 3d 138[A], 2014 NY Slip Op 51261[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2014]). In opposition, plaintiff failed to raise an issue of fact as to the action’s timeliness (see New York Hosp. Med. Ctr. of Queens v Motor Veh. Acc. Indem. Corp., 12 AD3d 429 [2004]; Precision Radiology Servs., P.C. v MVAIC, 34 Misc 3d 126[A], 2011 NY Slip Op 52274[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2011]).

Accordingly, the order is affirmed.

PESCE, P.J., WESTON and ALIOTTA, JJ., concur.


ENTER:
Paul Kenny
Chief Clerk
Decision Date: July 12, 2019