Omega Diagnostic Imaging, P.C. v MVAIC, 2011 NY Slip Op 50867(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2011)
“In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, the Civil Court denied a motion by defendant Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corp. (sued herein as MVAIC), pursuant to CPLR 5015, to vacate a default judgment entered against it. MVAIC’s proffered defense lacks merit since Insurance Law § 5214 does not bar the entry of a default judgment against MVAIC in an action in which MVAIC is the named defendant and has defaulted”
If you keeping raising the SAME arguments that fail on appeal, do you really think you will eventually win? Seriously?
This should have been affirmed with $30 in costs.
12 Responses
Keep in mind the Term where this was filed. When is the last time a provider has won before this Term against MVAIC, under any evidentiary circumstances whatsoever?
You have won before against this Defendant at that term. Stop complaining. Find some strippers to have your office cross examine lol.
Hey, this is our win here, as well, just to be clear. I’m still pissed, however, and will be for years to come.
I’m also, over the top, pissed off at the SCOTUS which has rendered the 4th Amendment meaningless, and I will be pissed forever at the current bench because of that… minus one.
These are crazy times. We are now repeatedly informed that the law is not what we were taught in law school, that it is a nebulous, fungible creature of whimsy, and only applies in a fashion favorable to massive corporate and governmental interests.
In related news, I’m guessing about 5 weeks until the Court of Appeals determines the motion for leave in Unitrin….
I knew it was your win. BTW are you talking about the SCOTUS case where the police can barge into your house if their hear fourth department approved strippers practicing their craft? What is worse is that the current bench of the Court of Appeals seems to be following the lead of the SCOTUS. Indelible right to counsel? Watered down. People v. Belton, nope. People v. Debour? Just wait. Aguilar-Spinelli? Well we will soon be a totality of the circumstances of the state soon.
Not good times. What does our resident defense attorney, Ray have to say?
5214 is worded ambiguously. It can reasonably be read to preclude defaults against MVAIC. And besides, given MVAIC’s purpose, should defaults against it really be allowed, thus permitting some unqualified applicants to collect benefits? My opinion is no.
I concur with Sun totally. I think what he said was beautifully stated and I would hate to step on it. I have recently completed a series of wiretap suppression hearings dealing solely with the issue of minimization. According to the law — the statute and the brilliantly written Court of Appeals decisions — the government has to make reasonable efforts to minimize the amount of irrelevant conversations it intercepts.
It gets complex. Certain conversations you can listen to and determine that they are non pertinent and then stop recording. You can then spot check and if its still not pertinent you have to stop, etc.
Other conversations. A father and his 8 year old son or 6 year old daughter are per se you cannot listen — soon as you see the number you have to turn off the machine. Same with lawyers who represent you in legal matters. Priests. Doctors. Spousal as long as the spouse is not involved. etc.
In the case I worked on they did it all. Conversations with the little boy. Conversations with his little daughter. Post indictment and arrest conversations with his lawyer about me — his incoming attorney. Conversations with his wife — they were up for months and months on this wire and new she was absolutely not involved in any wrongdoing. In fact the allegations against the client are very weak.
In the end the level of suppression was ridiculous. Those portions of calls exceeding two minutes were suppressed.
Remember we created our wiretap statute because of Supreme Court decision saying the way we did things in NY was unconstitutional — back when we had a real Supreme Court. The brilliant Court of Appeals decisions are cited to but then distinguished in ridiculous fashion — Sun’s whim.
In all of 2010 in every appeal decided involving a criminal conviction — only 30 new trials were ordered.
In this country there is no constitution except for the paper. There are only corporations. No justice.
I believe as Thomas Jefferson said that the roots of liberty need to be refreshed by new blood every so often. I believe we are a fascist nation of idiots. Buy the record American Idiot or see the play.
Now I remember conversations between my client and his son when his son was sick in bed. I remember conversations between the client and his wife where they were talking about romantic stuff.
If the government ever listens to me talk to my little son or wife — if they ever soil my family — this group of disgusting perverted corporate puppets — I better not know about it because the blood will flow in rivers.
And that is the only answer. You won’t find it in any court.
“Larry Rogak:
May 19, 2011 at 5:04 pm
5214 is worded ambiguously. It can reasonably be read to preclude defaults against MVAIC. And besides, given MVAIC’s purpose, should defaults against it really be allowed, thus permitting some unqualified applicants to collect benefits? My opinion is no.”
Gotta love Rogak for taking a stab here. Let me explain why.
If MVAIC can’t default, no entity can never obtain judgment against MVAIC, at MVAIC’s election. All they have to do is refuse to attend trial, and you can’t take judgment against them, no matter how aggregious its underlying failure to provide medical benefits.
In short, if the Court where to rule Rogak’s way, the judiciary would have retracted MVAIC’s requirement to provide any insurance coverage on any level to any of its qualified insureds, resulting in thousands of new pseudo-uninsureds every year, all who have injuries but no means for medical treatment.
Is there anyone that you think should have insurance coverage that actually works when you are injured, Rogak?
Some people are in law strictly for the money.
Others are natural justice seekers, who, at least at one time, took comfort in the fairness, predictability and certainty the law seemingly provided.
The former group will not care about recent news articles such as this:
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/05/23/110523fa_fact_mayer
http://www.salon.com/news/privacy/index.html?story=/opinion/greenwald/2011/05/20/surveillance
Don’t be so hard on Rogak Sun. He has no idea about what he is saying. But he will have the last laugh because in the end the Rogakian world that you describe will be the reality. It is happening every day.
“Know your rights … all three of them …
You have the right not to be killed
unless its done by a policeman …
or an aristocrat.
You have the right to free speech …
as long as you are dumb enough to actually try it …”
Stummer/Jones from the Clash’s Combat Rock
Rogak caught me at the wrong time with the wrong argument.
MVAIC, thank you once again for giving me all the material I need to expose you…. working on a fun one right now, which Nelson will not want to read. For any reasonable court, this one will be the last nail in the coffin.
What I always find amazing is that nobody that posts on here – whether plaintiff or defendant – ever has anything nice to say about MVAIC. It is interesting.