March 16, 2015

Compas Med., P.C. v MVAIC (2015 NY Slip Op 50395(U))

https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/compas-med-p-c-v-mvaic-2015-ny-slip-op-50395u/

Court: Appellate Term, Second Department
Decided: March 16, 2015
Citation: 2015 NY Slip Op 50395(U) · 47 Misc 3d 128(A)
Posture: Summary judgment
Outcome: Provider prevailed
Issues: MVAIC
Legal questions: MVAIC eligibility: qualified covered person (see the maps)

Cite as

Compas Med., P.C. v MVAIC, 47 Misc 3d 128(A), 2015 NY Slip Op 50395(U) (App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2015)

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.

MVAIC failed to offer admissible evidence that the assignor could recover no-fault benefits under an existing automobile policy. The provider obtained summary judgment on its assigned-benefits claims, and MVAIC's cross motion to dismiss was denied. MVAIC argued that the assignor had not exhausted available remedies before seeking payment from it. The evidence did not establish coverage on the accident date. Although hearsay may be considered in opposition to summary judgment, hearsay alone cannot defeat the motion. MVAIC therefore neither raised a triable issue nor established entitlement to judgment. The Appellate Term, Second Department, affirmed the judgment for the provider.

Reported in New York Official Reports at Compas Med., P.C. v MVAIC (2015 NY Slip Op 50395(U))

[*1]

Compas Med., P.C. v MVAIC

2015 NY Slip Op 50395(U) [47 Misc 3d 128(A)]

Decided on March 16, 2015

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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 March 16, 2015

SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 2d, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS

PRESENT: : PESCE, P.J., ALIOTTA and SOLOMON, JJ.
2012-2343 K C

Compas Medical, P.C. as Assignee of ANTHONY ALCINDOR, Respondent,

against

MVAIC, Appellant.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Reginald A. Boddie, J.), entered August 14, 2012, deemed from a judgment of the same court entered October 22, 2012 (see CPLR 5501 [c]). The judgment, entered pursuant to the August 14, 2012 order granting plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and denying defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $4,396.99.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

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

On appeal, MVAIC argues that plaintiff’s assignor failed to exhaust his remedies before seeking to recover from MVAIC. However, MVAIC failed to proffer any evidence in admissible form establishing that, on the date of the accident, the assignor would have been entitled to recover first-party no-fault benefits pursuant to an existing automobile insurance policy. “Although hearsay evidence may be considered in opposition to a motion for summary judgment, such evidence alone is not sufficient to defeat the motion” (Feinberg v Sanz, 115 AD3d 705 [2014]; see Weinstein v Nicolosi, 117 AD3d 1036 [2014). As a result, MVAIC failed to raise a triable issue of fact, let alone establish its entitlement to summary judgment.

Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

Pesce, P.J., Aliotta and Solomon, JJ., concur.

Decision Date: March 16, 2015

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.

MVAIC eligibility: qualified covered person

Open the full map

Against MVAIC, was the claimant shown to be a qualified, covered person meeting article 52’s conditions?

This decision: MVAIC bore the burden on its eligibility / lack-of-coverage defense and did not meet it; claimant prevails on this point

Rejected MVAIC's failure-to-exhaust argument because MVAIC offered no admissible evidence that the assignor was entitled to benefits under an existing policy, so it failed to raise a triable issue.

Found not eligibleClaimant's proof lackingMVAIC failed to proveFound eligibleUnresolved / for trialDefense precluded/waivedThis decision

Of the 223 decisions on this question in the Second Department courts and the Court of Appeals, 23 (this one included) are in the same category.

Similar decisions

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.
Ap Orthopedic & Rehabilitation, P.C. v Mvaic (2011 NY Slip Op 51448(U))The assignor's failure to provide proof of New York residency defeated the provider's claim for no-fault benefits from MVAIC. The Appellate Term, Second Department, found that the assignor was neither a qualified person under Insurance Law § 5202 (b) nor a covered person under Insurance Law § 5221 (b) (2), leaving a condition precedent unsatisfied.
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.
A.C. Med., P.C. v MVAIC (2019 NY Slip Op 51698(U))A provider must exhaust remedies against all potential insurance carriers before seeking assigned no-fault benefits from MVAIC. The provider appealed an order granting MVAIC summary judgment dismissing the complaint and denying the provider's cross motion for summary judgment.
AR Med. Rehabilitation, P.C. v MVAIC (2010 NY Slip Op 51349(U))MVAIC obtained summary judgment because no proof established exhaustion of remedies against the known owner of the vehicle.