Opinion
No. 2011–2036KC.
2013-04-8
W.H.O. ACUPUNCTURE, P.C. as Assignee of Mohamed Blidi, Rafail Gibatullin and Dennis Ramiez, Respondent, v. AMERICAN TRANSIT INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant.
Present: RIOS, J.P., PESCE and ALIOTTA, JJ.
Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Carolyn E. Wade, J.), entered May 2, 2011. 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, and defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and plaintiff's cross motion for summary judgment are remitted to the Civil Court for a new determination after final resolution of a prompt application to the Workers' Compensation Board to determine the parties' rights under the Workers' Compensation Law. In the event plaintiff fails to file proof with the Civil Court of such application within 90 days of the date of this decision and order, the Civil Court shall grant defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and deny plaintiff's cross motion for summary judgment unless plaintiff shows good cause why the complaint should not be dismissed.
In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint based upon plaintiff's assignors' alleged eligibility for workers' compensation benefits, and plaintiff cross-moved for summary judgment. The Civil Court denied defendant's motion, on the ground that defendant had failed to proffer evidence in admissible form in support of its defense, and granted plaintiff's cross motion.
Defendant proffered sufficient evidence in admissible form of the alleged facts which gave rise to its contention that there was an issue as to whether plaintiff's assignors had been acting as employees at the time of the accident, and that therefore workers' compensation benefits might be available ( see e.g. Jamaica Med. Supply, Inc. v. American Tr. Ins. Co., 34 Misc.3d 133[A], 2011 N.Y. Slip Op 52371[U] [App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2011]; D.A.V. Chiropractic, P.C. v. American Tr. Ins. Co., 29 Misc.3d 128[A], 2010 N.Y. Slip Op 51738[U] [App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2010]; AR Med. Rehabilitation, P.C. v. American Tr. Ins. Co., 27 Misc.3d 133[A], 2010 N.Y. Slip Op 50708[U] [App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2010]; Response Equip., Inc. v. American Tr. Ins. Co., 15 Misc.3d 145[A], 2007 N.Y. Slip Op 51176[U] [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2007]; cf. Westchester Med. Ctr. v. American Tr. Ins. Co., 60 AD3d 848 [2009] ). This issue must be resolved in the first instance by the Workers' Compensation Board (Board) ( see O'Rourke v. Long, 41 N.Y.2d 219, 225 [1976];see also Dunn v. American Tr. Ins. Co., 71 AD3d 629 [2010];Jamaica Med. Supply, Inc. v. American Tr. Ins. Co., 34 Misc.3d 133[A], 2011 N.Y. Slip Op 52371[U]; D.A.V. Chiropractic, P.C. v. American Tr. Ins. Co., 29 Misc.3d 128[A], 2010 N.Y. Slip Op 51738[U]; AR Med. Rehabilitation, P.C. v. American Tr. Ins. Co., 27 Misc.3d 133[A], 2010 N.Y. Slip Op 50708[U]; Response Equip., Inc. v. American Tr. Ins. Co., 15 Misc.3d 145[A], 2007 N.Y. Slip Op 51176[U] ).
Accordingly, defendant's motion and plaintiff's cross motion should not have been determined. Instead, the Civil Court should decide the motions after final Board resolution. A prompt application to the Board, as set forth above, is required in order to determine the parties' rights under the Workers' Compensation Law ( see Dunn v. American Tr. Ins. Co., 71 AD3d 629;LMK Psychological Serv., P.C. v. American Tr. Ins. Co., 64 AD3d 752 [2009] ).