February 16, 2023

Performance Life Chiropractic PC v MVAIC (2023 NY Slip Op 50105(U))

Headnote

MVAIC established that the assignor was an insured under an automobile policy and therefore was not a qualified person entitled to its benefits. A certified Department of Motor Vehicles document showed that the assignor held an automobile insurance policy in the assignor's own name. Under Insurance Law § 5202 (b) and Insurance Law § 5221 (b) (2), that coverage defeated eligibility for no-fault benefits from MVAIC. The provider's counsel's opposing affirmation raised no triable issue and did not address the certified record. The Appellate Term, First Department, reversed the order, granted MVAIC's motion for summary judgment, and dismissed the complaint.

Reported in New York Official Reports at Performance Life Chiropractic PC v MVAIC (2023 NY Slip Op 50105(U))

[*1]
Performance Life Chiropractic PC v MVAIC
2023 NY Slip Op 50105(U) [77 Misc 3d 141(A)]
Decided on February 16, 2023
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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 February 16, 2023
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT: Hagler, P.J., Tisch, James, JJ.
570364/22

Performance Life Chiropractic PC a/a/o Angelo Arias, Plaintiff-Respondent,

against

MVAIC, Defendant-Appellant.


Defendant appeals from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County (Denise M. Dominguez, J.), entered October 12, 2021, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Per Curiam.

Order (Denise M. Dominguez, J.), entered October 12, 2021, reversed, with $10 costs, motion granted, and the complaint dismissed. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.

Defendant MVAIC’s submission in support of its motion for summary judgment established, prima facie, that plaintiff’s assignor was not a “qualified” person entitled to no fault benefits from MVAIC because she was an “insured” under an automobile policy in her own name (see Insurance Law §§ 5202[b], 5221[b][2]; Englington Med., P.C. v Motor Veh. Acc. Indem. Corp., 81 AD3d 223, 228 [2011]; Matter of Kenyon, 105 AD2d 530 [1984]). MVAIC’s proof included a certified document from the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) indicating that the assignor was an insured under an automobile insurance policy issued by GEICO (see Central Park Physical Medicine PC v MVAIC, 77 Misc 3d 127[A], 2022 NY Slip Op 51127[U] [App Term, 1st Dept 2022]; see also Matter of Insurance Co. of N. Am. v Castillo, 158 AD2d 691, 692 [1990]).

In opposition, the affirmation of counsel failed to raise any triable issue, and did not even address the certified DMV record showing insurance coverage.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

I concur I concur I concur

Decision Date: February 16, 2023

Cited in this decision

Similar decisions