July 26, 2024

Longevity Med. Supply, Inc. v MVAIC (2024 NY Slip Op 51164(U))

https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/longevity-med-supply-inc-v-mvaic-2024-ny-slip-op-51164u/

Court: Appellate Term, Second Department
Decided: July 26, 2024
Citation: 2024 NY Slip Op 51164(U) · 83 Misc 3d 132(A)
Posture: Summary judgment
Outcome: Insurer prevailed
Later treatment: Followed in 1 later decision (see Cited by)
Issues: MVAIC
Legal questions: MVAIC eligibility: qualified covered person (see the maps)

Cite as

Longevity Med. Supply, Inc. v MVAIC, 83 Misc 3d 132(A), 2024 NY Slip Op 51164(U) (App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2024)

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 assignor was not a qualified person because the assignor owned the vehicle operated at the time of the accident. The Appellate Term, Second Department, reversed the order, insofar as appealed from, and granted MVAIC summary judgment dismissing the provider's assigned no-fault complaint. Applying Vehicle and Traffic Law § 128 and Insurance Law §§ 5102 (e) and 5202 (b), the court found ownership established prima facie. The assignor therefore was ineligible to be deemed a covered person entitled to MVAIC benefits under Insurance Law § 5221 (b) (2). The provider failed to raise a triable factual issue.

Reported in New York Official Reports at Longevity Med. Supply, Inc. v MVAIC (2024 NY Slip Op 51164(U))

[*1]

Longevity Med. Supply, Inc. v MVAIC

2024 NY Slip Op 51164(U) [83 Misc 3d 132(A)]

Decided on July 26, 2024

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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 July 26, 2024

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

PRESENT: : MARINA CORA MUNDY, J.P., WAVNY TOUSSAINT, PHILLIP HOM, JJ
2023-1058 K C

Longevity Medical Supply, Inc., as Assignee of Carr, Durand, Respondent,

against

MVAIC, Appellant.

Marshall & Marshall, PLLC (Angelique Evangelista and Frank D’Esposito of counsel), for appellant. The Rybak Firm, PLLC (Oleg Rybak of counsel), for respondent (no brief filed).

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Jill R. Epstein, J.), dated August 10, 2023. The order, insofar as appealed from, denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

ORDERED that the order, insofar as appealed from, is reversed, with $30 costs, and defendant’s 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 (Jill R. Epstein, J.) dated August 10, 2023 as denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

In support of its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, MVAIC made a prima facie showing that plaintiff’s assignor is not a “qualified person” (Insurance Law § 5202 [b]), as the assignor was an owner of the vehicle he was operating at the time of the accident (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 128; Insurance Law §§ 5102 [e]; 5202 [b]; American States Ins. Co. v Huff, 119 AD3d 478 [2014]; Jamaica Dedicated Med. Care, P.C. v Praetorian Ins. Co., 47 Misc [*2]3d 147[A], 2015 NY Slip Op 50756[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2015]). Consequently, plaintiff’s assignor was not eligible to be deemed to be a “covered person” (Insurance Law § 5221 [b] [2]) who would be entitled to recover no-fault benefits from MVAIC. In opposition, plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557 [1980]; see also Maiga Prods. Corp. v MVAIC, 68 Misc 3d 131[A], 2020 NY Slip Op 50993[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2020]). As a result, MVAIC’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint should have been granted.

Accordingly, the order, insofar as appealed from, is reversed and defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted.

MUNDY, J.P., TOUSSAINT and HOM, JJ., concur.

ENTER:
Paul Kenny
Chief Clerk
Decision Date: July 26, 2024

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: Court finds a qualification or article 52 condition affirmatively NOT met; claim fails on that ground

Held the assignor was not a qualified person because he owned the vehicle he was operating, so he could not be a covered person, and granted MVAIC summary judgment when plaintiff raised no triable issue.

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, 67 (this one included) are in the same category.

Cited in this decision

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

American States Ins. Co. v Huff (2014 NY Slip Op 05366) FollowedThe assignor's departure from an EUO before questions about the accident and injuries breached a condition precedent to coverage.
Jamaica Dedicated Med. Care, P.C. v Praetorian Ins. Co. (2015 NY Slip Op 50756(U)) FollowedThe insurer failed to establish that the assignor materially misrepresented residence to obtain insurance at reduced premiums.
Maiga Prods. Corp. v MVAIC (2020 NY Slip Op 50993(U))The provider failed at trial to establish that its assignor was not the owner of the uninsured vehicle, defeating eligibility for MVAIC benefits.

Cited by

A label shows how the later decision treated this one.

Medical Supply Depot Group Corp. v MVAIC (2025 NY Slip Op 50844(U)) FollowedMVAIC established that the assignor was ineligible for no-fault benefits because the assignor owned the vehicle involved in the accident.

Similar decisions

NY Wellness Med., P.C. v MVAIC (2025 NY Slip Op 51165(U))MVAIC failed to establish other available insurance or timely denials preserving its defense of the assignor's EUO nonappearances.
Island Life Chiropractic Pain Care, PLLC v MVAIC (2019 NY Slip Op 50226(U))The assignor failed to establish qualification for MVAIC benefits because the assignor admitted purchasing the car driven in the accident.
T & S Med. Supply Corp. v MVAIC (2017 NY Slip Op 51755(U))MVAIC established nonreceipt of a notice-of-intention affidavit, and the record did not establish the assignor's qualified-person status.
New Millennium Med. Imaging, P.C. v MVAIC (2026 NY Slip Op 50202(U))MVAIC failed to establish that the assignor was a vehicle owner disqualified from recovering no-fault benefits as a qualified person.
Village Med. Supply, Inc. v MVAIC (2016 NY Slip Op 51421(U))The provider failed at trial to establish the assignor's eligibility for MVAIC benefits through residency proof and a notice-of-intention affidavit.