New Millennium Med. Imaging, P.C. v. M.V.A.I.C.

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

New Millennium Med. Imaging, P.C. v. M.V.A.I.C.

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedJuly 19, 2019

Docket2019 NYSlipOp 51186(U)

StatusPublished

This text of New Millennium Med. Imaging, P.C. v. M.V.A.I.C. (New Millennium Med. Imaging, P.C. v. M.V.A.I.C.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

New Millennium Med. Imaging, P.C. v. M.V.A.I.C., (N.Y. Ct. App. 2019).

Pincite

Opinion

New Millennium Medical Imaging, P.C., as Assignee of Francisco Cruz, Respondent,

against

M..A.I.C., Appellant.

Marshall & Marshall, PLLC (Tracy Bader Pollack of counsel), for appellant. Law Office of Damin J. Toell, P.C. (Damin J. Toell of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Robin Kelly Sheares, J.), entered April 27, 2017. The order, insofar as appealed from, denied defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

ORDERED that the order, insofar as appealed from, is reversed, with $30 costs, and defendant's 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 M.V.A.I.C.) appeals from so much of an order of the Civil Court as denied defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Since plaintiff's assignor was aware of the identity of the owner of the vehicle which struck plaintiff's assignor at the time of the accident, plaintiff, as assignee, was required to exhaust its remedies against the vehicle's owner before seeking relief from defendant (see Hauswirth v American Home Assur. Co., 244 AD2d 528 [1997]; Compas Med., P.C. v MVAIC, 42 Misc 3d 150[A], 2014 NY Slip Op 50414[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2014]). Here, plaintiff did not demonstrate that it had exhausted its remedies against the owner of the vehicle (see BLR Chiropractic, P.C. v MVAIC, 33 Misc 3d 131[A], 2011 NY Slip Op 51878[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2011]; see also BLR Chiropractic, P.C. v MVAIC, 36 Misc 3d 129[A], 2011 NY Slip Op 52517[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2011]).

Accordingly, the order, insofar as appealed from, is reversed, and defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted.

PESCE, P.J., WESTON and ALIOTTA, JJ., concur.

ENTER:
Paul Kenny
Chief Clerk
Decision Date: July 19, 2019

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

New Millennium Medical Imaging, P.C., as Assignee of Francisco Cruz, Respondent,

against

M..A.I.C., Appellant.

Marshall & Marshall, PLLC (Tracy Bader Pollack of counsel), for appellant. Law Office of Damin J. Toell, P.C. (Damin J. Toell of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Robin Kelly Sheares, J.), entered April 27, 2017. The order, insofar as appealed from, denied defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

ORDERED that the order, insofar as appealed from, is reversed, with $30 costs, and defendant's 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 M.V.A.I.C.) appeals from so much of an order of the Civil Court as denied defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Since plaintiff's assignor was aware of the identity of the owner of the vehicle which struck plaintiff's assignor at the time of the accident, plaintiff, as assignee, was required to exhaust its remedies against the vehicle's owner before seeking relief from defendant (see Hauswirth v American Home Assur. Co., 244 AD2d 528 [1997]; Compas Med., P.C. v MVAIC, 42 Misc 3d 150[A], 2014 NY Slip Op 50414[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2014]). Here, plaintiff did not demonstrate that it had exhausted its remedies against the owner of the vehicle (see BLR Chiropractic, P.C. v MVAIC, 33 Misc 3d 131[A], 2011 NY Slip Op 51878[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2011]; see also BLR Chiropractic, P.C. v MVAIC, 36 Misc 3d 129[A], 2011 NY Slip Op 52517[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2011]).

Accordingly, the order, insofar as appealed from, is reversed, and defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted.

PESCE, P.J., WESTON and ALIOTTA, JJ., concur.

ENTER:
Paul Kenny
Chief Clerk
Decision Date: July 19, 2019

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

New Millennium Med. Imaging, P.C. v. M.V.A.I.C., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/new-millennium-med-imaging-pc-v-mvaic-nyappterm-2019.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack