MVAIC cannot prove lack of coverage and wants interest tolled indefinitelyMarch 21, 2013

Hilda-Bloor Med., P.C. v MVAIC, 2013 NY Slip Op 50382(U)(App. Term 1st Dept. 2013)

“Defendant failed to submit any competent proof establishing that plaintiff’s assignor was not qualified to receive no-fault benefits (see Englington Med., P.C. v Motor Veh. Acc. Indem. Corp., 81 AD3d 223, 229 [2011]; Matter of MVAIC v Interboro Med. Care & Diagnostic PC, 73 AD3d 667 [2010]). Nor did defendant show that plaintiff was required to “exhaust its remedies” prior to commencing this action”

“In the event it is determined that the cited tolling provision is applicable, the result would be the accrual of interest from the commencement date of the action and not, as defendant would have it, a complete moratorium on the payment of interest”

I like the theory that interest should toll indefinitely, and perhaps one who knowingly places a case into a court with rampant congestion should be charged with some of the accrued interest.  It is not as if the defendant placed the case into  Bronx Civil court, where matters get adjourned forever…

Leave a Reply