Opinion
No. 2020-967 K C
08-05-2022
Right Aid Medical Supply Corp., as Assignee of Thompson, Carl, 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Unpublished Opinion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 (Patria Frias-Colón, J.), dated September 16, 2020. The order, insofar as appealed from and as limited by the brief, denied defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
ORDERED that the order, insofar as appealed from, is reversed, with $30 costs, and defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted.
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 September 16, 2020, the Civil Court denied MVAIC's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and, upon denying plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, made implicit CPLR 3212 (g) findings in plaintiff's favor. MVAIC appeals from so much of the order as denied its motion for summary judgment.
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, insofar as appealed from, is reversed and defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted.
ALIOTTA, P.J., TOUSSAINT and GOLIA, JJ., concur.