February 22, 2019

Starlite Acupuncture, P.C. v MVAIC (2019 NY Slip Op 50225(U))

Headnote

MVAIC established that the assignor failed to timely file a notice to make claim, defeating the provider's right to seek benefits. The Appellate Term, Second Department, reversed the order denying MVAIC's motion for summary judgment and granted dismissal of the provider's assigned no-fault claims. Without timely filing under Insurance Law § 5208 (a), the assignor was not a covered person under Insurance Law § 5221 (b) (2), and a condition precedent to seeking payment remained unsatisfied. The provider failed to establish that leave to file a late notice had been obtained under Insurance Law § 5208 (c) or otherwise raise a triable issue. The court reached no other issue.

Reported in New York Official Reports at Starlite Acupuncture, P.C. v MVAIC (2019 NY Slip Op 50225(U))

[*1]
Starlite Acupuncture, P.C. v MVAIC
2019 NY Slip Op 50225(U) [62 Misc 3d 148(A)]
Decided on February 22, 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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 February 22, 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
2016-2957 K C

Starlite Acupuncture, P.C., as Assignee of Pinckney, Donovan, Respondent,

against

MVAIC, Appellant.


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

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Robin Kelly Sheares, J.), entered June 11, 2016. The order denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

ORDERED that the order is reversed, with $30 costs, and defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted.

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

Since MVAIC established that there had been no timely filing of a notice to make claim (see Insurance Law § 5208 [a]), plaintiff’s assignor is not a “covered person” (Insurance Law § 5221 [b] [2]). Thus, a condition precedent to plaintiff’s right to apply for payment of no-fault benefits from defendant has not been satisfied (see M.N.M. Med. Health Care, P.C. v MVAIC, 22 Misc 3d 128[A], 2009 NY Slip Op 50041[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2009]; Bell Air Med. Supply, LLC v MVAIC, 16 Misc 3d 135[A], 2007 NY Slip Op 51607[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2007]). In opposition to MVAIC’s motion, plaintiff failed to establish that leave had been obtained to file a late notice of claim or otherwise raise a triable issue of fact (see Insurance Law § 5208 [c]). In light of the foregoing, we reach no other issue.

Accordingly, the order is reversed and defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted.

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


ENTER:
Paul Kenny
Chief Clerk
Decision Date: February 22, 2019