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.

Five Boro Psychological Services, P.C. As Assignee of Elizabeth Jacome, Appellant v. Mvaic

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


May 11, 2012

FIVE BORO PSYCHOLOGICAL SERVICES, P.C. AS ASSIGNEE OF ELIZABETH JACOME, APPELLANT,
v.
MVAIC, RESPONDENT.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Carolyn E. Wade, J.), entered June 9, 2010, deemed from a judgment of the same court entered September 20, 2010 (see CPLR 5501 [c]).

Five Boro Psychological Servs., P.C. 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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 May 11, 2012

PRESENT: PESCE, P.J., RIOS and ALIOTTA, JJ

The judgment, entered pursuant to the June 9, 2010 order denying plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and granting defendant's cross motion for summary judgment, dismissed the complaint.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Civil Court which denied its motion for summary judgment and granted a cross motion by defendant Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corporation (sued herein as MVAIC) for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. A judgment was subsequently entered, from which the appeal is deemed to have been taken (see CPLR 5501 [c]).

Since MVAIC established 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]), plaintiff's assignor is not a covered person (see Insurance Law § 5221 [b] [2]), and, thus, a condition precedent to plaintiff's right to apply for payment of no-fault benefits from MVAIC had not been satisfied (M.N.M. Med. Health Care, P.C. v MVAIC, 22 Misc 3d 128[A], 2009 NY Slip Op 50041[U] [App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2009]; Bell Air Med. Supply, LLC v MVAIC, 16 Misc 3d 135[A], 2007 NY Slip Op 51607[U] [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2007]; Ocean Diagnostic Imaging v Motor Veh. Acc. Indem. Corp., 8 Misc 3d 137[A], 2005 NY Slip Op 51271[U] [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2005]). Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

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

Decision Date: May 11, 2012

20120511

© 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.