Renelique v MVAIC

[*1] Renelique v MVAIC 2016 NY Slip Op 51408(U) Decided on September 27, 2016 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 September 27, 2016
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 2d, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : PESCE, P.J., ALIOTTA and SOLOMON, JJ.
2014-365 Q C

Pierre Jean Jacques Renelique, as Assignee of JAMES RONIKA, Respondent,

against

MVAIC, Appellant.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Maureen A. Healy, J.), entered October 4, 2013, deemed from a judgment of the same court entered January 29, 2014 (see CPLR 5501 [c]). The judgment, entered pursuant to the October 4, 2013 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 $3,236.94.

ORDERED that the judgment is reversed, with $30 costs, the order entered October 4, 2013 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 October 4, 2013 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 plaintiff and its assignor were aware of the identity of the owner of the vehicle in which the assignor had been a passenger at the time of the accident, plaintiff, as assignee, was required to exhaust its remedies against the vehicle's owner before seeking relief from MVAIC (see 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 Dept, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2008]; Doctor Liliya Med., P.C. v MVAIC, 21 Misc 3d 143[A], 2008 NY Slip Op 52453[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2008]). Here, plaintiff did not demonstrate that it had exhausted its remedies against the owner of the vehicle. In light of the foregoing, we reach no other issue.

Accordingly, the judgment is reversed, the order entered October 4, 2013 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: September 27, 2016