February 16, 2023
Performance Life Chiropractic PC v MVAIC (2023 NY Slip Op 50105(U))
https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/performance-life-chiropractic-pc-v-mvaic-2023-ny-slip-op-50105u/
- Court
- Appellate Term, First Department
- Decided
- February 16, 2023
- Citation
- 2023 NY Slip Op 50105(U) · 77 Misc 3d 141(A)
- Posture
- Summary judgment
- Outcome
- Insurer prevailed
- Issues
- MVAIC Policy issues
- Legal questions
- MVAIC eligibility: qualified covered person (see the maps)
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.
Reported in New York Official Reports at Performance Life Chiropractic PC v MVAIC (2023 NY Slip Op 50105(U))
[*1]| Performance Life Chiropractic PC v MVAIC |
| 2023 NY Slip Op 50105(U) [77 Misc 3d 141(A)] |
| Decided on February 16, 2023 |
| 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| This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 16, 2023
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT: Hagler, P.J., Tisch, James, JJ.
570364/22
against
MVAIC, Defendant-Appellant.
Defendant appeals from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County (Denise M. Dominguez, J.), entered October 12, 2021, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
Per Curiam.
Order (Denise M. Dominguez, J.), entered October 12, 2021, reversed, with $10 costs, motion granted, and the complaint dismissed. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.
Defendant MVAIC’s submission in support of its motion for summary judgment established, prima facie, that plaintiff’s assignor was not a “qualified” person entitled to no fault benefits from MVAIC because she was an “insured” under an automobile policy in her own name (see Insurance Law §§ 5202[b], 5221[b][2]; Englington Med., P.C. v Motor Veh. Acc. Indem. Corp., 81 AD3d 223, 228 [2011]; Matter of Kenyon, 105 AD2d 530 [1984]). MVAIC’s proof included a certified document from the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) indicating that the assignor was an insured under an automobile insurance policy issued by GEICO (see Central Park Physical Medicine PC v MVAIC, 77 Misc 3d 127[A], 2022 NY Slip Op 51127[U] [App Term, 1st Dept 2022]; see also Matter of Insurance Co. of N. Am. v Castillo, 158 AD2d 691, 692 [1990]).
In opposition, the affirmation of counsel failed to raise any triable issue, and did not even address the certified DMV record showing insurance coverage.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.
I concur I concur I concurDecision Date: February 16, 2023
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.
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
Granted MVAIC summary judgment because a certified DMV record showed the assignor was an insured under her own GEICO policy, so she was not a qualified person; opposition raised no triable issue.
Of the 43 decisions on this question in the First Department courts and the Court of Appeals, 11 (this one included) are in the same category. One decision in other departments that cites or is cited by this one is on the full map.
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)MVAIC failed to establish that the assignor's uninsured mini-bike disqualified the assignor from receiving no-fault benefits.
- Central Park Physical Medicine PC v MVAIC (2022 NY Slip Op 51127(U)) FollowedMVAIC established that the assignor was ineligible for benefits because the assignor held an automobile policy in the assignor's own name.
Similar decisions
- 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.
- Longevity Med. Supply, Inc. v MVAIC (2024 NY Slip Op 51164(U))MVAIC established that the assignor was not a qualified person because the assignor owned the vehicle operated at the time of the accident.
- Advanced Chiropractic of NY, P.C. v MVAIC (2017 NY Slip Op 50955(U))The provider failed to prove the assignor's New York residency and the absence of other available insurance coverage for its MVAIC claim.
- JJ & R Chiropractic PC v MVAIC (2019 NY Slip Op 51559(U))MVAIC's motion for summary judgment dismissing the provider's no-fault action was denied for failure to establish its asserted eligibility defenses.
- Medical Supply Depot Group Corp. v MVAIC (2025 NY Slip Op 50844(U))MVAIC established that the assignor was ineligible for no-fault benefits because the assignor owned the vehicle involved in the accident.