Veraso Med. Supply Corp. v. Nationwide Ins.

73 Misc. 3d 139(A), 2021 NY Slip Op 51167(U)

• Court: Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York
• Decided: November 26, 2021
• Docket: 2020-248 K C
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Veraso Med. Supply Corp. v Nationwide Ins. (2021 NY Slip Op 51167(U)) [*1]

Veraso Med. Supply Corp. v Nationwide Ins.

2021 NY Slip Op 51167(U) [73 Misc 3d 139(A)]

Decided on November 26, 2021

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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 November 26, 2021

SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 2d, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS

PRESENT: : THOMAS P. ALIOTTA, P.J., DAVID ELLIOT, WAVNY TOUSSAINT, JJ
2020-248 K C

Veraso Medical Supply Corp., as Assignee of Suarez, Pedro, Appellant,

against

Nationwide Ins., Respondent.

The Rybak Firm, PLLC (Damin J. Toell and Karina Barska of counsel), for appellant. McCormack, Mattei & Holler (Jamila Shukry of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal from a judgment of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Robin Kelly Sheares, J.), entered July 22, 2019. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, dismissed the complaint.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, with $25 costs.

In this action, plaintiff seeks to recover the principal sum of $2,720.72 in assigned first-party no-fault benefits. At a nonjury trial, the only issue to be tried was whether plaintiff was eligible to receive reimbursements for its no-fault claims (see 11 NYCRR 65-3.16 [a] [12]). Following the trial, the Civil Court dismissed the complaint.

At trial, defendant sought to prove that plaintiff, a medical supply company located in Brooklyn, New York, is not eligible to recover pursuant to 11 NYCRR 65-3.16 (a) (12), which states, insofar as is relevant here, that "a provider of health care services is not eligible for reimbursement under section 5102 (a) (1) of the Insurance Law if the provider fails to meet any applicable New York State or local licensing requirement necessary to perform such service in New York." Contrary to plaintiff's contention, the proof adduced at trial was sufficient to establish by a preponderance of the credible evidence that plaintiff had failed to comply with the [*2]local licensing requirements (see Administrative Code of City of NY § 20-425; 6 RCNY § 2-271). Plaintiff's remaining contentions are raised for the first time on appeal and we decline to consider them.

Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

ALIOTTA, P.J., ELLIOT and TOUSSAINT, JJ., concur.

ENTER:
Paul Kenny
Chief Clerk
Decision Date: November 26, 2021