August 2, 2019

Compas v MVAIC (2019 NY Slip Op 51246(U))

https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/compas-v-mvaic-2019-ny-slip-op-51246u/

Court
Appellate Term, Second Department
Decided
August 2, 2019
Citation
2019 NY Slip Op 51246(U) · 64 Misc 3d 140(A)
Posture
Summary judgment
Outcome
Insurer prevailed
Issues
Statute of limitations
Legal questions
No-fault statute of limitations (see the maps)
Cite as
Compas v MVAIC, 64 Misc 3d 140(A), 2019 NY Slip Op 51246(U) (App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2019)

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 established that the provider's action was commenced after the three-year statute of limitations expired. The provider sought assigned first-party no-fault benefits and cross-moved for summary judgment in response to MVAIC's dismissal motion. Following Kings Highway Diagnostic Imaging, P.C. v MVAIC, the Appellate Term, Second Department, found that MVAIC's moving papers established untimeliness prima facie and that the provider failed to raise a factual issue in opposition. It affirmed the order granting MVAIC summary judgment dismissing the complaint and denying the provider's cross motion.

Reported in New York Official Reports at Compas v MVAIC (2019 NY Slip Op 51246(U))

[*1]
Compas v MVAIC
2019 NY Slip Op 51246(U) [64 Misc 3d 140(A)]
Decided on August 2, 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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 August 2, 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
2017-387 K C

Jean Claude Compas, M.D., as Assignee of Vital, Joseph Emmanuel, 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 (Steven Z. Mostofsky, J.), entered August 17, 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, defendant Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corporation (sued herein as MVAIC) 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, and plaintiff cross-moved for summary judgment. The Civil Court granted defendant’s motion and denied plaintiff’s cross motion.

MVAIC’s motion 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]). 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: August 02, 2019

Similar decisions