Intuitive Chiropractic, P.C. v MVAIC

[*1] Intuitive Chiropractic, P.C. v MVAIC 2012 NY Slip Op 50147(U) Decided on January 24, 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 January 24, 2012
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
APPELLATE TERM: 2nd, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : WESTON, J.P., PESCE and RIOS, JJ
2010-1750 Q C. -x

Intuitive Chiropractic, P.C. as Assignee of MARGARITA MENDEZ, Respondent,

against

MVAIC, Appellant. -x

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Anna Culley, J.), entered June 18, 2010, deemed from a judgment of the same court entered July 8, 2010 (see CPLR 5512 [a]; Neuman v Otto, 114 AD2d 791 [1985]). The judgment, entered pursuant to the June 18, 2010 order granting plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and denying defendant's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $829.84.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, defendant appeals from an order granting plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and denying defendant's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. We deem the appeal to be from the judgment entered pursuant to the order (see CPLR 5512 [a]; Neuman v Otto, 114 AD2d 791 [1985]).

On appeal, defendant contends that plaintiff was not entitled to summary judgment because plaintiff's assignor was not a qualified person since he failed to provide defendant with a household affidavit or written proof of lack of insurance. This argument lacks merit because plaintiff's assignor's status as a qualified person is not dependent upon defendant's receipt of these documents (see Insurance Law § 5202 [b]; Liberty Orthopedics, PLLC v MVAIC, 20 Misc 3d 136[A], 2008 NY Slip Op 51533[U] [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2008]). As plaintiff established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see New York Hosp. Med. Ctr. of Queens v Motor Veh. Acc. Indem. Corp., 12 AD3d 429 [2004]), the judgment is affirmed.

Weston, J.P., Pesce and Rios, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: January 24, 2012