Veraso Med. Supply Corp. v. Nationwide Ins.

• Decision Date: 26 November 2021
• Docket Number: 2020-248 K C
• Citation: 155 N.Y.S.3d 526 (Table),73 Misc.3d 139 (A)
• Parties: VERASO MEDICAL SUPPLY CORP., as Assignee of Suarez, Pedro, Appellant, v. NATIONWIDE INS., Respondent.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Term

73 Misc.3d 139 (A)
155 N.Y.S.3d 526 (Table)

VERASO MEDICAL SUPPLY CORP., as Assignee of Suarez, Pedro, Appellant,
v.
NATIONWIDE INS., Respondent.

2020-248 K C

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, New York, Second Dept., 2, 11, 13 Jud. Dist.

Decided on November 26, 2021

The Rybak Firm, PLLC (Damin J. Toell and Karina Barska of counsel), for appellant.

McCormack, Mattei & Holler (Jamila Shukry of counsel), for respondent.

PRESENT: THOMAS P. ALIOTTA, P.J., DAVID ELLIOT, WAVNY TOUSSAINT, JJ.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, with $25 costs.

In this action, plaintiff seeks to recover the principal sum of $2,720.72 in assigned first-party no-fault benefits. At a nonjury trial, the only issue to be tried was whether plaintiff was eligible to receive reimbursements for its no-fault claims (see 11 NYCRR 65-3.16 [a] [12]). Following the trial, the Civil Court dismissed the complaint.

At trial, defendant sought to prove that plaintiff, a medical supply company located in Brooklyn, New York, is not eligible to recover pursuant to 11 NYCRR 65-3.16 (a) (12), which states, insofar as is relevant here, that "a provider of health care services is not eligible for reimbursement under section 5102 (a) (1) of the Insurance Law if the provider fails to meet any applicable New York State or local licensing requirement necessary to perform such service in New York." Contrary to plaintiff's contention, the proof adduced at trial was sufficient to establish by a preponderance of the credible evidence that plaintiff had failed to comply with the local licensing requirements (see Administrative Code of City of NY § 20-425; 6 RCNY § 2-271). Plaintiff's remaining contentions are raised for the first time on appeal and we decline to consider them.

Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

ALIOTTA, P.J., ELLIOT and TOUSSAINT, JJ., concur.