| Jamaica Wellness Med., P.C. v MVAIC |
| 2022 NY Slip Op 50574(U) [75 Misc 3d 138(A)] |
| Decided on June 10, 2022 |
| Appellate Term, Second Department |
| Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. |
| This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports. |
Marshall & Marshall, PLLC (Frank D'Esposito of counsel), for appellant. Kopelevich & Feldsherova, P.C. (David Landfair of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Rosemarie Montalbano, J.), entered August 27, 2019. The order, insofar as appealed from, denied the branches of defendant's motion seeking summary judgment dismissing so much of the complaint as sought to recover upon claims for dates of service December 10, 2015 and January 12, 2016.
ORDERED that the order, insofar as appealed from, is affirmed, without costs.
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 so much of an order of the Civil Court as denied the branches of MVAIC's motion seeking summary judgment dismissing so much of the complaint as sought to recover upon claims for dates of service December 10, 2015 and January 12, 2016.
Contrary to MVAIC's contention, the 30-day period within which MVAIC may timely deny a claim or request verification begins to run upon receipt of the claim without regard to whether MVAIC has determined that plaintiff's assignor is a covered person within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5221 (b) (2) (see New York Hosp. Med. Ctr. of Queens v Motor Veh. Acc. Indem. Corp., 12 AD3d 429 [2004]; Active Care Med. Supply Corp. v MVAIC, 66 Misc 3d 128[A], 2019 NY Slip Op 52045[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2019]). As a result, with respect to the branches of MVAIC's motion seeking summary judgment dismissing so much of the complaint as sought to recover upon claims for dates of service December 10, 2015 and January 12, 2016, MVAIC failed to establish that it is not precluded from interposing its defense of lack of medical necessity (see Active Care Med. Supply Corp. v [*2]MVAIC, 2019 NY Slip Op 52045[U]).
Accordingly, the order, insofar as appealed from, is affirmed.
ALIOTTA, P.J., TOUSSAINT and GOLIA, JJ., concur.