July 21, 2017

Village Med. Supply, Inc. v MVAIC (2017 NY Slip Op 50936(U))

https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/village-med-supply-inc-v-mvaic-2017-ny-slip-op-50936u/

Court: Appellate Term, Second Department
Decided: July 21, 2017
Citation: 2017 NY Slip Op 50936(U) · 56 Misc 3d 132(A)
Posture: Trial
Outcome: Insurer prevailed
Issues: MVAIC
Legal questions: MVAIC eligibility: qualified covered person (see the maps)

Cite as

Village Med. Supply, Inc. v MVAIC, 56 Misc 3d 132(A), 2017 NY Slip Op 50936(U) (App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2017)

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.

The provider's judgment against MVAIC was reversed on the issue of whether the assignor was a qualified person entitled to no-fault benefits. The Appellate Term, Second Department, relied on the reasons stated in Village Med. Supply, Inc. v MVAIC and remitted for judgment dismissing the complaint. It also dismissed the appeal from the trial decision because no appeal lay under CCA 1702.

Reported in New York Official Reports at Village Med. Supply, Inc. v MVAIC (2017 NY Slip Op 50936(U))

[*1]

Village Med. Supply, Inc. v MVAIC

2017 NY Slip Op 50936(U) [56 Misc 3d 132(A)]

Decided on July 21, 2017

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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 July 21, 2017

SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 2d, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS

PRESENT: : MICHAEL L. PESCE, P.J., THOMAS P. ALIOTTA, MARTIN M. SOLOMON, JJ
2014-808 K C

Village Medical Supply, Inc., as Assignee of Laza Luz, Respondent,

against

MVAIC, Appellant.

Marshall & Marshall, PLLC (Naim M. Press, Esq.), for appellant. Zara Javakov, P.C. (Zara Javakov, Esq.), for respondent.

Appeal from a decision of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Ingrid Joseph, J.), dated April 5, 2013, and from a judgment of the same court entered November 4, 2013. The judgment, entered pursuant to the decision, after a nonjury trial, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $959.39.

ORDERED that so much of the appeal as is from the decision is dismissed, as no appeal lies therefrom (see CCA 1702); and it is further,

ORDERED that the judgment is reversed, with $30 costs, and the matter is remitted to the Civil Court for the entry of a judgment in favor of defendant dismissing the complaint.

At a nonjury trial in this action to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, the parties agreed that the sole issue for trial was whether plaintiff’s assignor was a “qualified person,” and, thus, whether she was eligible to recover no-fault benefits from defendant Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corporation (sued herein as MVAIC). Following the trial, the Civil Court awarded plaintiff judgment in the principal sum of $959.39.

For the reasons stated in Village Med. Supply, Inc. v MVAIC (53 Misc 3d 134[A], 2016 NY Slip Op 51429[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2016]), the judgment is reversed and the matter is remitted to the Civil Court for the entry of a judgment in favor of defendant dismissing the complaint.

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

ENTER:
Paul Kenny
Chief Clerk
Decision Date: July 21, 2017

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: Eligibility is treated as the claimant's burden / condition precedent and the claimant did not prove it; claim fails or is premature (rules on the question, but another ground decided the case)

Held, for reasons adopted from an earlier companion decision, that the trial on whether the assignor was a qualified person should have ended in judgment for MVAIC dismissing the complaint.

Found not eligibleClaimant's proof lackingMVAIC failed to proveFound eligibleUnresolved / for trialDefense precluded/waivedThis decision

Of the 223 decisions on this question in the Second Department courts and the Court of Appeals, 99 (this one included) are in the same category.

Similar decisions

Five Boro Psychological Servs., P.C. v MVAIC (2018 NY Slip Op 50778(U))The provider's trial judgment against MVAIC was reversed in a dispute over the assignor's status as a qualified person.
Lida’s Med. Supply, Inc. v MVAIC (2019 NY Slip Op 52071(U))The provider failed to demonstrate exhaustion of remedies against a known vehicle owner before seeking no-fault benefits from MVAIC. The assignor knew the identity of the owner of the vehicle the assignor was driving at the time of the accident.
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.
Advanced Med. Diagnostics of Queens, P.C. v Mvaic (2015 NY Slip Op 51659(U))The provider failed at trial to show exhaustion of remedies against the known vehicle owner before seeking benefits from MVAIC. A prior order had limited the nonjury trial to whether MVAIC coverage existed.
AR Med. Rehabilitation, P.C. v MVAIC (2019 NY Slip Op 51057(U))A provider must exhaust remedies against a known vehicle owner before seeking assigned no-fault benefits from MVAIC. At a nonjury trial, the parties stipulated that exhaustion was the sole issue.