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.

Central Radiology Services, P.C. As Assignee of Belinda Guzman v. Mvaic

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


August 7, 2012

CENTRAL RADIOLOGY SERVICES, P.C. AS ASSIGNEE OF BELINDA GUZMAN,
RESPONDENT, --
v.
MVAIC,
APPELLANT.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Richard G. Latin, J.), entered October 4, 2010, deemed from a judgment of the same court entered November 4, 2010 (see CPLR 5501 [c]).

Central Radiology Servs., P.C. v MVAIC

Decided on August 7, 2012

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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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., RIOS and ALIOTTA, JJ

The judgment, entered pursuant to the October 4, 2010 order granting plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and denying defendant's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $1,791.73.

ORDERED that the judgment 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 an order which granted plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and denied defendant's cross motion 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]).

On appeal, defendant contends that, although it had received a sworn notice of intention to make claim form (see Insurance Law § 5208), plaintiff was not entitled to summary judgment because plaintiff's assignor was not a qualified person since she had failed to provide defendant with a household affidavit. Defendant's argument lacks merit because plaintiff's assignor's status as a qualified person is not dependent upon defendant's receipt of a household affidavit (see Insurance Law § 5202 [b]; Farragut Corner Med., P.C. v MVAIC, 32 Misc 3d 137[A], 2011 NY Slip Op 51529[U] [App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2011]; Liberty Orthopedics, PLLC v MVAIC, 20 Misc 3d 136[A], 2008 NY Slip Op 51533[U] [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2008]; see generally New York Hosp. Med. Ctr. of Queens v Motor Veh. Acc. Indem. Corp., 12 AD3d 429 [2004]). Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

Pesce, P.J., Rios and Aliotta, JJ., concur. Decision Date: August 07, 2012

20120807

© 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.