Millennium Med. Instruments v MVAIC

Annotate this Case
[*1] Millennium Med. Instruments v MVAIC 2010 NY Slip Op 50583(U) [27 Misc 3d 127(A)] Decided on March 31, 2010 Appellate Term, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law ยง 431. This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on March 31, 2010
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
APPELLATE TERM: 2nd, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : PESCE, P.J., WESTON and STEINHARDT, JJ
2008-1540 K C.

Millennium Medical Instruments a/a/o EBONY BIRRMINGHAM, Appellant,

against

MVAIC, Respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Sylvia G. Ash, J.), entered July 30, 2007. The order granted defendant's motion for summary judgment.


ORDERED that the appeal is dismissed.

In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, defendant Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corporation (sued herein as MVAIC) moved for summary judgment on the ground that, among other things, plaintiff's assignor had failed to exhaust all available insurance remedies. Although, at oral argument before this court, the parties acknowledged that papers had been submitted in opposition to the motion for summary judgment and in reply, none of these papers appear in the record that is before this court, and the order appealed from recites that the Civil Court considered only the moving papers. In this posture, the order appealed from must be considered as having been entered on default, and no appeal lies therefrom by the defaulting party (see CPLR 5511; Coneys v Johnson Controls, Inc., 11 AD3d 576 [2004]; Marino v Termini, 4 AD3d 342 [2004]; Infinity Chiropractic, P.C. v New York Cent. Mut. Ins. Co., 14 Misc 3d 138[A], 2007 NY Slip Op 50262[U] [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2007]). Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

Pesce, P.J., Weston and Steinhardt, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: March 31, 2010

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.