February 25, 2011

Omega Med. Diagnostic v MVAIC (2011 NY Slip Op 50275(U))

Headnote

The provider's summary judgment motion was granted and MVAIC's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint was denied. The Appellate Term, First Department, affirmed, citing New York Hosp. Med. Ctr. of Queens v Motor Veh. Acc. Indem. Corp., because the provider made a prima facie showing and MVAIC raised no triable issue concerning the assignor's qualification or compliance with Insurance Law § 5208.

Reported in New York Official Reports at Omega Med. Diagnostic v MVAIC (2011 NY Slip Op 50275(U))

[*1]
Omega Med. Diagnostic v MVAIC
2011 NY Slip Op 50275(U) [30 Misc 3d 141(A)]
Decided on February 25, 2011
Appellate Term, First 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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 February 25, 2011
APPELLATE TERM OF THE SUPREME COURT, FIRST DEPARTMENT

PRESENT: Schoenfeld, J.P., Shulman, Torres, JJ
570379/10.

Omega Medical Diagnostic a/a/o Gloria Guity, Plaintiff-Respondent,

against

MVAIC, Defendant-Appellant.


Defendant appeals from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Bronx County (Nelida Malave-Gonzalez, J.), entered March 11, 2010, which granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, and denied defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.


Per Curiam.

Order (Nelida Malave-Gonzalez, J.), entered March 11, 2011, affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on its complaint seeking recovery of assigned first-party no-fault benefits (see New York Hosp. Med. Ctr. of Queens v Motor Veh. Acc. Indem. Corp., 12 AD3d 429 [2004], lv denied 4 NY3d 705 [2005]). In opposition, defendant-MVAIC failed to raise a triable issue with respect to whether plaintiff’s assignor was “qualified” to receive benefits from defendant (see generally MVAIC v Interboro Med. Care & Diagnostic PC, 73 AD3d 667 [2010]), or whether plaintiff’s assignor failed to comply with Insurance Law § 5208.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

I concurI concurI concur
Decision Date: February 25, 2011

Cited in this decision

Similar decisions