Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Lila Gold, J.), entered April 25, 2006.
Palin Winotaka, L.Ac. v Mvaic
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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.
PRESENT: PESCE, P.J., WESTON and RIOS, JJ
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 affirmed, without costs.
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 so much of an order as denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
Where a plaintiff and its assignor are aware of the identity of the
owner of the vehicle in which the assignor was a passenger at the time
of the accident, the plaintiff, as assignee, is required to exhaust
its remedies against the vehicle's owner before seeking relief from
MVAIC (Hauswirth v American Home Assur. Co., 244 AD2d 528 ;
Modern Art Med., P.C. v MVAIC, 22 Misc 3d 126[A], 2008 NY Slip Op
52586[U] [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2008]; Doctor Liliya Med., P.C. v MVAIC, 21 Misc 3d
143[A], 2008 NY Slip Op 52453[U] [App Term, 2d
& 11th Jud Dists 2008]). In the instant case, we find that plaintiff has demonstrated
the existence of an issue of fact as to whether its remedies against the vehicle's owner
have been exhausted. As a result, defendant is not entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
Accordingly, the order, insofar as appealed from, is affirmed.
Pesce, P.J., Weston and Rios, JJ., concur.