Reliable Physical Therapy, P.C. v. MVAIC

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Reliable Physical Therapy, P.C. v. MVAIC

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedJune 6, 2016

Docket2016 NYSlipOp 50919(U)

StatusPublished

This text of Reliable Physical Therapy, P.C. v. MVAIC (Reliable Physical Therapy, P.C. v. MVAIC) 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

Reliable Physical Therapy, P.C. v. MVAIC, (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

Reliable Physical Therapy, P.C., as Assignee of YEDIDA HOLMAN, Respondent,

against

MVAIC, Appellant.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Harriet L. Thompson, J.), entered June 20, 2013. The order denied defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

ORDERED that the order 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 MVAIC) appeals from an order of the Civil Court which denied MVAIC's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the action had been commenced after the statute of limitations had expired.

As MVAIC moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the action was barred by the statute of limitations, it bore the initial burden of establishing, prima facie, that the time in which to commence the action had expired (see 6D Farm Corp. v Carr, 63 AD3d 903 [2009]; Island ADC, Inc. v Baldassano Architectural Group, P.C., 49 AD3d 815 [2008]). MVAIC's moving papers established that the action had been commenced after the expiration of the three-year statute of limitations. In opposition, plaintiff failed to raise an issue of fact as to the action's timeliness (see New York Hosp. Med. Ctr. of Queens v Motor Veh. Acc. Indem. Corp., 12 AD3d 429, 429 [2004]; Precision Radiology Servs., P.C. v MVAIC, 34 Misc 3d 126[A], 2011 NY Slip Op 52274[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2011]; Kings Highway Diagnostic Imaging, P.C. v MVAIC, 19 Misc 3d 69 [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2008]).

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

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

Decision Date: June 06, 2016

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

Reliable Physical Therapy, P.C., as Assignee of YEDIDA HOLMAN, Respondent,

against

MVAIC, Appellant.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Harriet L. Thompson, J.), entered June 20, 2013. The order denied defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

ORDERED that the order 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 MVAIC) appeals from an order of the Civil Court which denied MVAIC's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the action had been commenced after the statute of limitations had expired.

As MVAIC moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the action was barred by the statute of limitations, it bore the initial burden of establishing, prima facie, that the time in which to commence the action had expired (see 6D Farm Corp. v Carr, 63 AD3d 903 [2009]; Island ADC, Inc. v Baldassano Architectural Group, P.C., 49 AD3d 815 [2008]). MVAIC's moving papers established that the action had been commenced after the expiration of the three-year statute of limitations. In opposition, plaintiff failed to raise an issue of fact as to the action's timeliness (see New York Hosp. Med. Ctr. of Queens v Motor Veh. Acc. Indem. Corp., 12 AD3d 429, 429 [2004]; Precision Radiology Servs., P.C. v MVAIC, 34 Misc 3d 126[A], 2011 NY Slip Op 52274[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2011]; Kings Highway Diagnostic Imaging, P.C. v MVAIC, 19 Misc 3d 69 [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2008]).

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

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

Decision Date: June 06, 2016

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Reliable Physical Therapy, P.C. v. MVAIC, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/reliable-physical-therapy-pc-v-mvaic-nyappterm-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack