BROOKSIDE PHYSICAL THERAPY v. MVAIC (2021)

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, New York,

BROOKSIDE PHYSICAL THERAPY a/a/o Crummell Curtis, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. MVAIC, Defendant-Appellant.

570104 /21

Decided: October 26, 2021

PRESENT: Edmead, P.J., McShan, Hagler, JJ.

Order (Jose A. Padilla, Jr., J.), entered November 5, 2020, reversed, with $10 costs, motion granted, and the complaint dismissed. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.

Defendant MVAIC's submission in support of its motion for summary judgment established, prima facie, that there had been no timely filing of a notice of intention to make claim (see Insurance Law § 5208[a]) and that no notice of the accident had been given “to a police, peace, or judicial officer” within 24 hours of the alleged occurrence (Insurance Law § 5208[a][2][A]). Thus, conditions precedent to plaintiff's right to apply for payment of no-fault benefits from defendant had not been satisfied (see SML Acupuncture P.C. v MVAIC, 55 Misc 3d 138[A], 2017 NY Slip Op 50539[U] [App Term, 1st Dept 2017]; Karina K. Acupuncture PC v MVAIC, 55 Misc 3d 138[A], 2017 NY Slip Op 50537[U] [App Term, 1st Dept 2017]). In opposition, plaintiff failed to raise any triable issue. MVAIC's failure to timely deny the claim does not preclude it from asserting a lack of coverage defense (see Matter of MVAIC v Interboro Med. Care & Diagnostic PC, 73 AD3d 667 [2010]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

Per Curiam.

All concur.

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.

Explore the Network