Opinion
No. 2021-72 K C
06-10-2022
Performance Plus Medical, P.C., as Assignee of Elkayam, Eliyohu, Respondent, v. MVAIC, Appellant.
Marshall & Marshall, PLLC (Frank D'Esposito of counsel), for appellant. The Rybak Firm, PLLC (Damin J. Toell of counsel), for respondent.
Unpublished Opinion
Marshall & Marshall, PLLC (Frank D'Esposito of counsel), for appellant.
The Rybak Firm, PLLC (Damin J. Toell of counsel), for respondent.
PRESENT:: THOMAS P. ALIOTTA, P.J., WAVNY TOUSSAINT, DONNA-MARIE E. GOLIA, JJ
Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Sandra E. Roper, J.), dated January 4, 2020. The order denied defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and granted plaintiff's cross motion for summary judgment.
ORDERED that the order is reversed, with $30 costs, defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted and plaintiff's cross motion for summary judgment is denied.
In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, defendant Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corporation (sued herein as MVAIC) moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground, among others, that the action had been commenced after the statute of limitations had expired, and plaintiff cross-moved for summary judgment. By order dated January 4, 2020, the Civil Court denied MVAIC's motion and granted plaintiff's cross motion.
MVAIC's motion papers established, prima facie, that the action had been commenced after the expiration of the three-year statute of limitations (see Kings Highway Diagnostic Imaging, P.C. v MVAIC, 19 Misc.3d 69 [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2008]; see also 6D Farm Corp. v Carr, 63 A.D.3d 903 [2009]; Island ADC, Inc. v Baldassano Architectural Group, P.C., 49 A.D.3d 815 [2008]). In opposition, plaintiff failed to raise an issue of fact as to the action's timeliness (see Precision Radiology Servs., P.C. v MVAIC, 34 Misc.3d 126 [A], 2011 NY Slip Op 52274[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2011]). In light of the foregoing, we reach no other issue.
Accordingly, the order is reversed, defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted and plaintiff's cross motion for summary judgment is denied.
ALIOTTA, P.J., TOUSSAINT and GOLIA, JJ., concur.