Turnpike Med., P.C. v MVAIC, 2011 NY Slip Op 51717(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2011)
Well, perhaps it was only a matter of time before the Appellate Term, Second Dept. revisited its stance regarding MVAIC. I cannot honestly say it is a bad thing either. I never understood why they were able to do things that no other carrier could do.
“On appeal, defendant contends that plaintiff was not entitled to summary judgment because plaintiff’s assignor was not a qualified person since he failed to provide defendant with written proof of lack of insurance. This argument lacks merit because plaintiff’s assignor’s status as a qualified person is not dependent upon defendant’s receipt of these documents (see Insurance Law § 5202 [b]; Liberty Orthopedics, PLLC v MVAIC, 20 Misc 3d 136[A], 2008 NY Slip Op 51533[U] [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2008]). As plaintiff established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see New York Hosp. Med. Ctr. of Queens v Motor Veh. Acc. Indem. Corp., 12 AD3d 429 [2004])…
Golia, dissent:
I am constrained to agree with the majority with regard to the issue of what constitutes a plaintiff’s prima facie case in a no-fault action brought against the Motor Vehicle Accident [*2]Indemnification Corporation (MVAIC) in view of the Appellate Division’s ruling in New York Hosp. Med. Ctr. of Queens v Motor Veh. Acc. Indem. Corp. (12 AD3d 429 [2004]; see also Matter of MVAIC v Interboro Med. Care & Diagnostic PC, 73 AD3d 667 [2010] [“the burden is on MVAIC to prove its lack-of-coverage defense”]).
Anybody know what happened to Turnpike medical? There were off Hempstead Tpke, right near District Court. They have been out of business for awhile. It always looked like a fun place to get therapy. I am saddened that I never got the opportunity to enjoy the turnpike experience.
One Response
This was part of my “lay the smack down” on MVAIC series.
Note that even Golia agreed, in backhanded fashion.
Not much different fundamental facts than others we have recently lost before same court. We illustrated that MVAIC’s arguments that the assignor must submit various material absent request in order to be “qualified” has little meaning when MVAIC indicates in discovery that material is not received when it is, in fact, received. Their conduct illustrated that the Term must adhear to Hosp. Med Center of Queens, which they had forgotten for a time.
I cannot believe MVAIC moved for leave regarding this line of three appeals, all referencing each other and all illustrating evidentiary gamesmanship– to put it very mildly. Do they even read the briefs? Almost making me feel my good work is going unnoticed… except for the #winning. I’m just gonna keep pounding away, and hope that they also bring these motions before the App. Division so they can see the material I presented first hand.