May 25, 2018
Forest Park Acupuncture, P.C. v MVAIC (2018 NY Slip Op 50768(U))
Headnote
Reported in New York Official Reports at Forest Park Acupuncture, P.C. v MVAIC (2018 NY Slip Op 50768(U))
[*1]| Forest Park Acupuncture, P.C. v MVAIC |
| 2018 NY Slip Op 50768(U) [59 Misc 3d 146(A)] |
| Decided on May 25, 2018 |
| 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| This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 May 25, 2018
PRESENT: : MICHAEL L. PESCE, P.J., THOMAS P. ALIOTTA, DAVID ELLIOT, JJ
2015-2371 K C
against
MVAIC, Appellant.
Marshall & Marshall, PLLC (Naim M. Peress of counsel), for appellant. Zara Javakov, P.C., for respondent (no brief filed).
Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Katherine A. Levine, J.), entered May 5, 2014. The order, insofar as appealed from, denied defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
ORDERED that the order, insofar as appealed from, is reversed, with $30 costs, and defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted.
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 so much of an order of the Civil Court as denied defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
Since MVAIC established that there had been no timely filing of a notice to make claim (see Insurance Law § 5208 [a]), plaintiff’s assignor is not a “covered person” (Insurance Law § 5221 [b] [2]). Thus, a condition precedent to plaintiff’s right to apply for payment of no-fault benefits from defendant has not been satisfied (see M.N.M. Med. Health Care, P.C. v MVAIC, 22 Misc 3d 128[A], 2009 NY Slip Op 50041[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2009]; Bell Air Med. Supply, LLC v MVAIC, 16 Misc 3d 135[A], 2007 NY Slip Op 51607[U] [*2][App Term, 2d Dept, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2007]). In opposition to MVAIC’s cross motion, plaintiff failed to establish that leave had been obtained to file a late notice of claim or otherwise raise a triable issue of fact (see Insurance Law § 5208 [c]). In light of the foregoing, we reach no other issue.
Accordingly, the order, insofar as appealed from, is reversed and defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted.
PESCE, P.J., ALIOTTA and ELLIOT, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Paul Kenny
Chief Clerk
Decision Date: May 25, 2018