October 18, 2019
A.C. Med., P.C. v MVAIC (2019 NY Slip Op 51698(U))
https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/a-c-med-p-c-v-mvaic-2019-ny-slip-op-51698u/
- Court
- Appellate Term, Second Department
- Decided
- October 18, 2019
- Citation
- 2019 NY Slip Op 51698(U) · 65 Misc 3d 139(A)
- Posture
- Summary judgment
- Outcome
- Insurer prevailed
- Issues
- MVAIC
- Legal questions
- MVAIC eligibility: qualified covered person (see the maps)
Posture, outcome, issues and treatment by other decisions are Beynenson Law’s classification. Treatment labels are assigned by a language model reading the citing decision; negative and appeal-history labels are checked by a second reader.
Summary
Editorial summary by Beynenson Law, not part of the court’s decision.
Reported in New York Official Reports at A.C. Med., P.C. v MVAIC (2019 NY Slip Op 51698(U))
[*1]| A.C. Med., P.C. v MVAIC |
| 2019 NY Slip Op 51698(U) [65 Misc 3d 139(A)] |
| Decided on October 18, 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| This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 October 18, 2019
PRESENT: : MICHAEL L. PESCE, P.J., THOMAS P. ALIOTTA, BERNICE D. SIEGAL, JJ
2018-1072 K C
against
MVAIC, Respondent.
Law Office of Melissa Betancourt, P.C. (Melissa Betancourt of counsel), for appellant. Marshall & Marshall, PLLC (Tracy Bader Pollak of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Odessa Kennedy, J.), entered February 20, 2018. 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 a motion by defendant Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corporation (sued herein as MVAIC) for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and denied plaintiff’s cross motion for summary judgment.
Plaintiff, as assignee, was required to exhaust its remedies against all potential insurance carriers before seeking relief from defendant (see Hauswirth v American Home Assur. Co., 244 AD2d 528 [1997]; Orlin & Cohen Orthopedic Assoc. v Motor Veh. Acc. Indem. Corp., 58 Misc 3d 132[A], 2017 NY Slip Op 51778[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2017]). Here, plaintiff did not demonstrate that it had exhausted its remedies. As a result, plaintiff’s claim is premature (see Hauswirth, 244 AD2d 528).
Accordingly, the order is affirmed.
PESCE, P.J., ALIOTTA and SIEGAL, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Paul Kenny
Chief Clerk
Decision Date: October 18, 2019
Legal questions
A question of no-fault law this decision rules on, from our Legal Questions pages. Bars count the decisions on the question by year and court, coloured by category; circles are this decision and the decisions on the question it cites or that cite it. Point at a bar or circle for details. The categories and summaries are Beynenson Law’s classification, made by a language model and checked by a second reading.
Against MVAIC, was the claimant shown to be a qualified, covered person meeting article 52’s conditions?
This decision: Eligibility is treated as the claimant's burden / condition precedent and the claimant did not prove it; claim fails or is premature
Affirmed summary judgment for MVAIC because the provider did not demonstrate that it had exhausted its remedies against all potential insurance carriers, so its claim was premature.
Of the 223 decisions on this question in the Second Department courts and the Court of Appeals, 99 (this one included) are in the same category.
Cited in this decision
A label shows how this decision treated the case it cites.
- Orlin & Cohen Orthopedic Assoc. v Motor Veh. Acc. Indem. Corp. (2017 NY Slip Op 51778(U)) FollowedThe provider failed at trial to prove exhaustion of remedies against potential insurers despite knowing the driver's identity.
Similar decisions
- Healthway Med. Care, P.C. v MVAIC (2019 NY Slip Op 50692(U))A provider must exhaust remedies against all potential insurance carriers before seeking no-fault benefits from MVAIC. Following a nonjury trial, Civil Court awarded judgment to the provider on its assigned claims.
- Compas Med., P.C. v MVAIC (2017 NY Slip Op 51467(U))The provider failed to demonstrate exhaustion of remedies against the known vehicle owner before seeking no-fault benefits from MVAIC. The provider and assignor knew the identity of the owner of the vehicle in which the assignor had been a passenger.
- Advanced Med. Diagnostics of Queens, P.C. v Mvaic (2015 NY Slip Op 51659(U))The provider failed at trial to show exhaustion of remedies against the known vehicle owner before seeking benefits from MVAIC. A prior order had limited the nonjury trial to whether MVAIC coverage existed.
- AR Med. Rehabilitation, P.C. v MVAIC (2019 NY Slip Op 51057(U))A provider must exhaust remedies against a known vehicle owner before seeking assigned no-fault benefits from MVAIC. At a nonjury trial, the parties stipulated that exhaustion was the sole issue.
- Metropolitan Med. Supplies, LLC v MVAIC (2013 NY Slip Op 51735(U))A provider seeking benefits from MVAIC must first exhaust remedies against a known owner of the vehicle that struck its assignor.