Yklik, Inc. v MVAIC

[*1] Yklik, Inc. v MVAIC 2012 NY Slip Op 51012(U) Decided on May 14, 2012 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 May 14, 2012
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 2d, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : PESCE, P.J., RIOS and ALIOTTA, JJ
2010-2651 K C.

Yklik, Inc. as Assignee of HERMENEGILDA DeJESUS, Respondent,

against

MVAIC, Appellant.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Robin S. Garson, J.), entered July 1, 2010. The order, insofar as appealed from, denied defendant's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

ORDERED that the order, insofar as appealed from, is reversed, without costs, and defendant's cross 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 so much an order of the Civil Court as denied its cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Since MVAIC established that there had been no timely filing of a sworn notice of claim and that leave had not been sought to file a late notice of claim (see Insurance Law § 5208 [a], [c]), plaintiff's assignor is not a covered person (see Insurance Law § 5221 [b] [2]) and, thus, a condition precedent to plaintiff's right to apply for payment of no-fault benefits from MVAIC had not been satisfied (M.N.M. Med. Health Care, P.C. v MVAIC, 22 Misc 3d 128[A], 2009 NY Slip [*2]Op 50041[U] [App Term, 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 & 11th Jud Dists 2007]; Ocean Diagnostic Imaging v Motor Veh. Acc. Indem. Corp., 8 Misc 3d 137[A], 2005 NY Slip Op 51271[U] [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2005]). Moreover, plaintiff and its assignor did not exhaust all remedies against the owner of the vehicle in which the assignor had been a passenger, even though plaintiff, as assignee, was required to do so before seeking relief from MVAIC (Hauswirth v American Home Assur. Co., 244 AD2d 528 [1997]; Modern Art Med., P.C. v MVAIC, 22 Misc 3d 126[A], 2008 NY Slip Op 52586[U] [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2008]).

Accordingly, in light of the foregoing, the order, insofar as appealed from, is reversed and defendant's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted.

Pesce, P.J., Rios and Aliotta, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: May 14, 2012