Central Park Physical Medicine PC v. MVAIC

77 Misc. 3d 127(A), 2022 NY Slip Op 51127(U)

• Court: Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York
• Decided: November 17, 2022
• Docket: 570408/22
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Central Park Physical Medicine PC v MVAIC (2022 NY Slip Op 51127(U)) [*1]

Central Park Physical Medicine PC v MVAIC

2022 NY Slip Op 51127(U) [77 Misc 3d 127(A)]

Decided on November 17, 2022

Appellate Term, First 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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 November 17, 2022

SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT: Hagler, J.P., Tisch, Michael, JJ.
570408/22

Central Park Physical Medicine PC a/a/o Ana Gutierrez, Plaintiff-Respondent,

against

MVAIC, Defendant-Appellant.

Defendant appeals from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County (Denise M. Dominguez, J.), entered August 19, 2021, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Per Curiam.

Order (Denise M. Dominguez, J.), entered August 19, 2021, reversed, without costs, motion granted, and the complaint dismissed. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.

Defendant MVAIC's submission in support of its motion for summary judgment established, prima facie, that plaintiff's assignor was not a "qualified" person entitled to no fault benefits from MVAIC because she was an "insured" under an automobile policy in her own name (see Insurance Law §§ 5202[b], 5221[b][2]; Englington Med., P.C. v Motor Veh. Acc. Indem. Corp., 81 AD3d 223, 228 [2011]; Matter of Kenyon, 105 AD2d 530 [1984]; BNE Clinton Med., P.C. v MVAIC, 74 Misc 3d 128[A], 2022 NY Slip Op 50058[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2022]). In opposition, plaintiff failed to raise any triable issue, and did not even address defendant's submission of the certified Department of Motor Vehicles record, which reflected that plaintiff's assignor had an automobile insurance policy with GEICO on the day of the accident. Nor did MVAIC's alleged failure to show that it timely mailed verification requests preclude it from asserting the threshold coverage defense (see generally Central Gen. Hosp. v Chubb Group of Ins. Cos., 90 NY2d 195, 199-200 [1997]).

All concur

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

Clerk of the Court
Decision Date: November 17, 2022