January 11, 2011

Greater Health Through Chiropractic, P.C. v Motor Veh. Acc. Indem. Corp. (2011 NY Slip Op 00183)

https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/greater-health-through-chiropractic-p-c-v-motor-veh-acc-indem-corp-2011-ny-slip-op-00183/

Court: Appellate Division, Second Department
Decided: January 11, 2011
Citation: 2011 NY Slip Op 00183 · 80 AD3d 561
Posture: Summary judgment
Outcome: Provider prevailed
Issues: MVAIC
Legal questions: MVAIC eligibility: qualified covered person (see the maps)

Cite as

Greater Health Through Chiropractic, P.C. v Motor Veh. Acc. Indem. Corp., 80 AD3d 561 (2d Dept 2011)

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's motion for summary judgment dismissing the provider's no-fault complaint remained denied on appeal. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the Appellate Term's order in the provider's action under Insurance Law article 52, relying entirely on the reasons stated in the companion appeal, Englington Med., P.C. v Motor Veh. Acc. Indem. Corp., decided the same day.

Reported in New York Official Reports at Greater Health Through Chiropractic, P.C. v Motor Veh. Acc. Indem. Corp. (2011 NY Slip Op 00183)

Greater Health Through Chiropractic, P.C. v Motor Veh. Acc. Indem. Corp.

2011 NY Slip Op 00183 [80 AD3d 561]

January 11, 2011

Appellate Division, Second Department

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

As corrected through Wednesday, March 9, 2011

Greater Health Through Chiropractic, P.C., as Assignee of Victoria Cruz, Respondent,
v
Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corporation, Appellant.

—[*1] Morris, Duffy, Alonso & Faley, New York, N.Y. (Anna J. Ervolina and Andrea M. Alonso of counsel), for appellant.

Gary Tsirelman, P.C., Brooklyn, N.Y. (Max Valerio and Darya Klein of counsel), for respondent.

In an action to recover no-fault medical payments pursuant to Insurance Law article 52, the defendant appeals, by permission, from an order of the Appellate Term of the Supreme Court for the Second, Eleventh, and Thirteen Judicial Districts, dated October 31, 2008, which affirmed an order of the Civil Court, Kings County (King, J.), entered September 11, 2007, denying that branch of its motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order dated October 31, 2008, is affirmed, with costs.

For the reasons set forth in the opinion and order in a companion appeal (see Englington Med., P.C. v Motor Veh. Acc. Indem. Corp., 81 AD3d 223 [2011] [decided herewith]), the Appellate Term of the Supreme Court for the Second, Eleventh, and Thirteenth Judicial Districts properly affirmed the order of the Civil Court, Kings County, denying that branch of the defendant’s motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Covello, J.P., Angiolillo, Leventhal and Sgroi, JJ., concur.

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 (rules on the question, but another ground decided the case)

Held MVAIC's summary judgment motion was properly denied for the reasons stated in the companion appeal decided the same day.

Found not eligibleClaimant's proof lackingMVAIC failed to proveFound eligibleUnresolved / for trialDefense precluded/waivedThis decisionCites it or cited by itCited or followed

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.

Cited in this decision

A label shows how this decision treated the case it cites.

Englington Med., P.C. v Motor Veh. Acc. Indem. Corp. (2011 NY Slip Op 00176) FollowedMVAIC failed to establish that the assignor's uninsured mini-bike disqualified the assignor from receiving no-fault benefits.

Cited by

Good Time Acupuncture, PC v MVAIC (2024 NY Slip Op 50979(U))MVAIC's summary judgment motion failed because the record showed partial compliance and evidence of a reasonable excuse for delay.

Similar decisions

Americhoice Med., P.C. v Motor Veh. Acc. Indem. Co. (2013 NY Slip Op 51742(U))The provider's late claim to MVAIC was dismissed because the provider supplied no written justification for the delay.
Optimal Well-Being Chiropractic, P.C. v MVAIC (2014 NY Slip Op 51817(U))The assignor was not a covered person because no timely notice of claim was filed with MVAIC and no leave to file a late notice was sought.
Great Health Care Chiropractic, P.C. v Hanover Ins. Co. (2014 NY Slip Op 50359(U))The insurer's fraudulent-procurement defense was precluded because it failed to establish a timely denial on that ground.
Greater Health Through Chiropractic, P.C. v MVAIC (2008 NY Slip Op 52178(U))MVAIC failed to establish that the vehicle the assignor was using or operating when injured was a motorcycle.
Great Health Care Chiropractic, P.C. v Unitrin Direct Ins. Co. (2016 NY Slip Op 50373(U))The insurer failed to prove a timely denial, and the provider failed to establish its prima facie entitlement to summary judgment.