Quality Psychological Servs., P.C. v MVAIC

Annotate this Case
[*1] Quality Psychological Servs., P.C. v MVAIC 2012 NY Slip Op 50404(U) Decided on March 5, 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 March 5, 2012
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 2d, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : PESCE, P.J., WESTON and RIOS, JJ
2010-3155 K C.

Quality Psychological Services, P.C. as Assignee of LOUIS KNIGHT, Appellant,

against

MVAIC, Respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Margaret A. Pui Yee Chan, J.), entered June 15, 2010. The order granted defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and denied plaintiff's cross motion for summary judgment.


ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs.

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

MVAIC's moving papers made a prima facie showing that MVAIC had not received the claim at issue in the instant case and that, as a result, its time to pay or deny the claim had never begun to run (Insurance Department Regulations [11 NYCRR] § 65-3.8 [a]). In opposition, plaintiff failed to, among other things, establish that it had submitted the claim form to MVAIC (see St. Vincent's Hosp. of Richmond v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 50 AD3d 1123 [2008]; [*2]Delta Diagnostic Radiology, P.C. v Chubb Group of Ins., 17 Misc 3d 16 [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2007]). In light of the foregoing, the order is affirmed.

Pesce, P.J., Weston and Rios, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: March 05, 2012

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.