Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Palin Winotaka, L.Ac. As Assignee of Janice Mullings v. Mvaic

New York Supreme and/or Appellate Courts SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 2d, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS


March 2, 2012

PALIN WINOTAKA, L.AC. AS ASSIGNEE OF JANICE MULLINGS,
RESPONDENT,
v.
MVAIC,
APPELLANT.

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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on March 2, 2012

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 [1997]; 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.

Decision Date: March 02, 2012

20120302

© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.