October 18, 2019

Right Aid Med. Supply Corp. v MVAIC (2019 NY Slip Op 51682(U))

Headnote

The provider's challenges to MVAIC's summary judgment motion were unpreserved because they were raised for the first time on appeal. The provider appealed from an order granting MVAIC summary judgment dismissing its action for assigned first-party no-fault benefits. The Appellate Term, Second Department, declined to consider any of the provider's arguments for denying the motion, following Joe v Upper Room Ministries, Inc. and Gulf Ins. Co. v Kanen. It affirmed the order dismissing the complaint in MVAIC's favor.

Reported in New York Official Reports at Right Aid Med. Supply Corp. v MVAIC (2019 NY Slip Op 51682(U))

[*1]
Right Aid Med. Supply Corp. v MVAIC
2019 NY Slip Op 51682(U) [65 Misc 3d 137(A)]
Decided on October 18, 2019
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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 October 18, 2019
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 2d, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS

PRESENT: : MICHAEL L. PESCE, P.J., THOMAS P. ALIOTTA, BERNICE D. SIEGAL, JJ
2016-2707 K C

Right Aid Medical Supply Corp., as Assignee of Bell, Lamont, Appellant,

against

MVAIC, Respondent.


The Rybak Firm, PLLC (Damin J. Toell of counsel), for appellant. Marshall & Marshall, PLLC (Barbara Carabell of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Richard J. Montelione, J.), entered September 12, 2016. The order granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with $25 costs.

In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Civil Court which granted a motion by defendant Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corporation (sued herein as MVAIC) for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

All of plaintiff’s arguments as to why defendant’s motion for summary judgment should have been denied are not properly before this court, since they are being raised for the first time on appeal, and we decline to consider them (see Joe v Upper Room Ministries, Inc., 88 AD3d 963 [2011]; Gulf Ins. Co. v Kanen, 13 AD3d 579 [2004]). Accordingly, the order is affirmed.

PESCE, P.J., ALIOTTA and SIEGAL, JJ., concur.


ENTER:
Paul Kenny
Chief Clerk
Decision Date: October 18, 2019

Similar decisions