December 29, 2011

Pomona Med. Diagnostics, P.C. v MVAIC (2011 NY Slip Op 52347(U))

https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/pomona-med-diagnostics-p-c-v-mvaic-2011-ny-slip-op-52347u/

Court: Appellate Term, First Department
Decided: December 29, 2011
Citation: 2011 NY Slip Op 52347(U) · 34 Misc 3d 131(A)
Posture: Summary judgment
Outcome: Insurer prevailed
Later treatment: Followed in 2 later decisions (see Cited by)
Issues: MVAIC Timeliness and preclusion
Legal questions: MVAIC eligibility: qualified covered person (see the maps)

Cite as

Pomona Med. Diagnostics, P.C. v MVAIC, 34 Misc 3d 131(A), 2011 NY Slip Op 52347(U) (App Term, 1st 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 established that the assignor failed to report a hit-and-run accident within 24 hours, and the provider offered no reasonable excuse. The provider sought assigned no-fault benefits for injuries allegedly sustained in the accident. Insurance Law § 5208 (a) (2) (A) required notice to a police, peace, or judicial officer within 24 hours. In opposition, the provider neither disputed noncompliance nor offered an excuse under Insurance Law § 5208 (a) (2) (B). The Appellate Term, First Department, reversed the order, granted MVAIC's summary judgment motion, and dismissed the complaint.

Reported in New York Official Reports at Pomona Med. Diagnostics, P.C. v MVAIC (2011 NY Slip Op 52347(U))

[*1]

Pomona Med. Diagnostics, P.C. v MVAIC

2011 NY Slip Op 52347(U) [34 Misc 3d 131(A)]

Decided on December 29, 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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 December 29, 2011

APPELLATE TERM OF THE SUPREME COURT, FIRST DEPARTMENT

PRESENT: Lowe, III, P.J., Shulman, Torres, JJ
570680/10.

Pomona Medical Diagnostics, P.C., a/a/o Faina Dubinskaya, Plaintiff-Respondent, – –

against

MVAIC, Defendant-Appellant.

Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Bronx County (Donald A. Miles, J.), entered June 30, 2010, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Per Curiam.

Order (Donald A. Miles, J.), entered June 30, 2010, reversed, with $10 costs, motion granted and complaint dismissed. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.

The action, seeking recovery of assigned first-party no-fault benefits, arises from a hit-and-run accident in which plaintiff’s assignor allegedly was injured. Defendant demonstrated entitlement to summary judgment dismissal of the action, having established that plaintiff’s assignor failed to comply with the statutory requirement that notice of the accident be given “to a police, peace, or judicial officer” within 24 hours of the occurrence (Insurance Law § 5208[a][2][A]; see Meridian Health Acupuncture, P.C. v MVAIC, 22 Misc 3d 141[A], 2009 NY Slip Op 50440[U] [2009]). In opposition, plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue. Plaintiff neither disputed that its assignor failed to report the accident within the requisite 24-hour period nor proffered any reasonable excuse for her failure to do so (see Insurance Law § 5208[a][2][B]).
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.
Decision Date: December 29, 2011

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 MVAIC established the hit-and-run assignor failed to report the accident to police within 24 hours, and the provider neither disputed this nor offered an excuse, so the complaint was dismissed.

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

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.

Meridian Health Acupuncture, P.C. v MVAIC (2009 NY Slip Op 50440(U)) FollowedThe provider failed to show compliance with the 24-hour hit-and-run reporting requirement or an excuse, defeating coverage through MVAIC. The assignor was a pedestrian injured in a hit-and-run accident.

Cited by

A label shows how the later decision treated this one.

Karina K. Acupuncture PC v MVAIC (2017 NY Slip Op 50537(U)) FollowedMVAIC established that the assignor failed to report the accident to a police, peace or judicial officer within 24 hours.
Omega Diagnostic Imaging, PC v MVAIC (2017 NY Slip Op 50568(U)) FollowedTrial documents established that the assignor failed to report the accident within 24 hours, defeating the provider's claim against MVAIC. The assignor alleged an unidentified vehicle struck the assignor's bicycle, but the notice of intention filed 12 days later stated that no police were called.

Similar decisions

Pomona Med. Diagnostic, P.C. v MVAIC (2011 NY Slip Op 51891(U))MVAIC's summary judgment motion was denied because it failed to show that the assignor was not a qualified person entitled to coverage.
Pomona Med. Diagnostics, P.C. v Motor Veh. Acc. Indem. Corp. (2012 NY Slip Op 51684(U))MVAIC failed to establish existing insurance coverage through conflicting statements in the assignor's notice of intention to file a claim.
Pomona Med. Diagnostic v MVAIC (2011 NY Slip Op 50042(U))MVAIC's uncertified insurance-activity printout did not establish that the assignor was ineligible for no-fault benefits.
Pomona Med. Diagnostics, PC v MVAIC (2013 NY Slip Op 51250(U))The provider's trial judgment was reversed because conflicting accident dates and unresolved police-report hearsay prevented an informed determination.
W.W. Med., P.C. v MVAIC (2014 NY Slip Op 50093(U))MVAIC waived objections to the sufficiency of the assignor's notice of intention to make claim by failing to timely raise them.