Opinion
2010-514 Q C.
Decided June 30, 2011.
Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Rudolph E. Greco, Jr., J.), entered February 4, 2010, deemed from a judgment of the same court entered March 1, 2010 (see CPLR 5501 [c]). The judgment, entered pursuant to the February 4, 2010 order denying defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and granting plaintiff's cross motion for summary judgment, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $1,804.
ORDERED that the judgment is reversed, without costs, the order entered February 4, 2010 is vacated, defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted and plaintiff's cross motion for summary judgment is denied.
PRESENT: WESTON, J.P., PESCE and RIOS, JJ.
In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, defendant Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corporation (sued herein as MVAIC) appeals from an order which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and granted plaintiff's cross motion for summary judgment. A judgment was subsequently entered, from which the appeal is deemed to have been taken ( see CPLR 5501 [c]).
Since plaintiff and its assignor were aware of the identity of the owner of the vehicle which had allegedly struck plaintiff's assignor, plaintiff, as assignee, was required to exhaust its remedies against the vehicle's owner before seeking relief from MVAIC ( Hauswirth v American Home Assur. Co., 244 AD2d 528; Modern Art Med., P.C. v MVAIC , 22 Misc 3d 126 [A], 2008 NY Slip Op 52586[U] [App Term, 2d 11th Jud Dists 2008]; Doctor Liliya Med., P.C. v MVAIC , 21 Misc 3d 143 [A], 2008 NY Slip Op 52453[U] [App Term, 2d 11th Jud Dists 2008]; Dr. Abakin, D.C., P.C. v MVAIC , 21 Misc 3d 134 [A], 2008 NY Slip Op 52186[U] [App Term, 2d 11th Jud Dists 2008]; Complete Med. Servs. of NY, P.C. v MVAIC , 20 Misc 3d 137 [A], 2008 NY Slip Op 51541[U] [App Term, 2d 11th Jud Dists 2008]). We note that the fact that the driver of the vehicle was charged with violating Vehicle and Traffic Law § 319-1 does not establish that the vehicle was, in fact, uninsured. Since plaintiff did not demonstrate that it had exhausted its remedies against the owner of the vehicle which had allegedly struck plaintiff's assignor, the judgment is reversed, the order entered February 4, 2010 is vacated, defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted and plaintiff's cross motion for summary judgment is denied.
Weston, J.P., Pesce and Rios, JJ., concur.