Optimal Well-Being Chiropractic, P.C. v MVAIC

[*1] Optimal Well-Being Chiropractic, P.C. v MVAIC 2014 NY Slip Op 51817(U) Decided on December 17, 2014 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 December 17, 2014
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 2d, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : PESCE, P.J., ALIOTTA and SOLOMON, JJ.
2012-1481 Q C

Optimal Well-being Chiropractic, P.C. as Assignee of JOSE USHINA, Respondent,

against

MVAIC, Appellant.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Joseph E. Capella, J.), entered May 18, 2012, deemed from a judgment of the same court entered June 6, 2012 (see CPLR 5501 [c]). The judgment, entered pursuant to the May 18, 2012 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 $2,330.50.

ORDERED that the judgment is reversed, with $30 costs, the order entered May 18, 2012 is vacated, plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is denied 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 an order of the Civil Court, entered May 18, 2012, which granted plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and denied defendant's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. A judgment was subsequently entered, from which the appeal is deemed to have been taken (see CPLR 5501 [c]).

Since defendant established that there had been no timely filing of a 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" (Insurance Law § 5221 [b] [2]). Thus, a condition precedent to plaintiff's right to apply for payment of no-fault benefits from defendant has not been satisfied (M.N.M. Med. Health Care, P.C. v MVAIC, 22 Misc 3d 128[A], 2009 NY Slip 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]). In light of the foregoing, we reach no other issue.

Accordingly, the judgment is reversed, the order entered May 18, 2012 is vacated, plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is denied and defendant's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted.

Pesce, P.J., Aliotta and Solomon, JJ., concur.

Decision Date: December 17, 2014