SML Acupuncture P.C. v. MVAIC

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

SML Acupuncture P.C. v. MVAIC

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedApril 21, 2017

Docket2017 NYSlipOp 50539(U)

StatusPublished

This text of SML Acupuncture P.C. v. MVAIC (SML Acupuncture 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

SML Acupuncture P.C. v. MVAIC, (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

SML Acupuncture P.C., a/a/o Jasmine Dunham, Plaintiff-Appellant, -

against

MVAIC, Defendant-Respondent.

Plaintiff appeals from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Bronx County (Joseph E. Capella, J.), entered March 13, 2015, which granted defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Per Curiam.

Order (Joseph E. Capella, J.), entered March 13, 2015, affirmed, with $10 costs.

MVAIC's submissions in support of its motion for summary judgment established, prima facie, 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]), and, thus, a condition precedent to plaintiff's right to apply for payment of no-fault benefits from defendant had not been satisfied (see Shore Med. Diagnostic, P.C. v MVAIC, 41 Misc 3d 131[A], 2013 NY Slip Op 51749[U] [App Term, 2nd, 11th and 13th Jud Dists 2013]; Yklik, Inc. v MVAIC, 35 Misc 3d 145[A], 2012 NY Slip Op 51012[U] [App Term, 2nd, 11th and 13th Jud Dists 2012]). In opposition, plaintiff failed to raise any triable issue. MVAIC's failure to timely deny the claim does not preclude it from asserting a lack of coverage defense (see Matter of MVAIC v Interboro Med. Care & Diagnostic PC, 73 AD3d 667 [2010]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

I concur I concur I concur
Decision Date: April 21, 2017

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

SML Acupuncture P.C., a/a/o Jasmine Dunham, Plaintiff-Appellant, -

against

MVAIC, Defendant-Respondent.

Plaintiff appeals from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Bronx County (Joseph E. Capella, J.), entered March 13, 2015, which granted defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Per Curiam.

Order (Joseph E. Capella, J.), entered March 13, 2015, affirmed, with $10 costs.

MVAIC's submissions in support of its motion for summary judgment established, prima facie, 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]), and, thus, a condition precedent to plaintiff's right to apply for payment of no-fault benefits from defendant had not been satisfied (see Shore Med. Diagnostic, P.C. v MVAIC, 41 Misc 3d 131[A], 2013 NY Slip Op 51749[U] [App Term, 2nd, 11th and 13th Jud Dists 2013]; Yklik, Inc. v MVAIC, 35 Misc 3d 145[A], 2012 NY Slip Op 51012[U] [App Term, 2nd, 11th and 13th Jud Dists 2012]). In opposition, plaintiff failed to raise any triable issue. MVAIC's failure to timely deny the claim does not preclude it from asserting a lack of coverage defense (see Matter of MVAIC v Interboro Med. Care & Diagnostic PC, 73 AD3d 667 [2010]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

I concur I concur I concur
Decision Date: April 21, 2017

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

SML Acupuncture P.C. v. MVAIC, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sml-acupuncture-pc-v-mvaic-nyappterm-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack