February 25, 2011

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

Headnote

A provider was granted summary judgment on its claim against MVAIC for assigned first-party no-fault benefits. The Appellate Term held the plaintiff made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment. MVAIC failed to raise a triable issue as to whether the assignor was a qualified person entitled to benefits, or whether the assignor failed to comply with Insurance Law § 5208. The order was affirmed.

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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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