Harmonized Acupuncture v. MVAIC - No-Fault Benefits Dispute

New York Appellate Terms

Filed February 13th, 2026

Detected March 5th, 2026

Summary

The Appellate Term of the Supreme Court of New York reversed a lower court's decision, granting summary judgment to MVAIC and dismissing a provider's claim for assigned first-party no-fault benefits. The court found the provider failed to establish compliance with the statutory requirement of timely filing a notice of claim with MVAIC.

View original document View source feed page

What changed

The Appellate Term of the Supreme Court of New York, in Harmonized Acupuncture v. MVAIC, reversed a lower court's order denying MVAIC's motion for summary judgment. The court found that the plaintiff, Harmonized Acupuncture, as assignee of Jadiah Hopkins, failed to establish that it had submitted a timely notice of intention to file a claim to MVAIC, which is a condition precedent for recovering no-fault benefits. Consequently, the complaint was dismissed.

This decision has significant implications for healthcare providers seeking to recover no-fault benefits through assignment. Providers must ensure strict adherence to the statutory requirements for filing notice with MVAIC. Failure to do so, as demonstrated in this case, will result in the dismissal of claims. Regulated entities should review their internal processes for handling no-fault claims and ensure all necessary documentation and filing deadlines are met to avoid adverse judgments.

What to do next

Review internal procedures for filing notices of intention to claim with MVAIC.
Ensure all claims for assigned no-fault benefits include proof of timely submission of the notice of intention.

Penalties

Dismissal of complaint

Source document (simplified)

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

Feb. 13, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Add Note

Harmonized Acupuncture v. MVAIC

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Citations: 2026 NY Slip Op 50211(U)
Docket Number: 2025-984 K C
Precedential Status: Non-Precedential
Opinion
Authorities (2)
Cited By (1)
Summaries (0)
Similar Cases (1.3K)
PDF

Combined Opinion

Harmonized Acupuncture v MVAIC (2026 NY Slip Op 50211(U))

[1]
| *Harmonized Acupuncture v MVAIC** |
| 2026 NY Slip Op 50211(U) |
| Decided on February 13, 2026 |
| 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. |

Decided on February 13, 2026
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 2d, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : WAVNY TOUSSAINT, P.J., MARINA CORA MUNDY, LISA S. OTTLEY, JJ
2025-984 K C

**Harmonized Acupuncture, as Assignee of Hopkins, Jadiah, Respondent,

against

MVAIC, Appellant.**

Marshall & Marshall, PLLC (Angelique Evangelista and Frank D'Esposito of counsel), for appellant.

The Rybak Firm, PLLC (Richard F. Rozhik of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Sandra E. Roper, J.), entered March 11, 2025. 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) appeals, as limited by the brief, from so much of an order of the Civil Court (Sandra E. Roper, J.) as denied MVAIC's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

"The filing of a timely affidavit providing the MVAIC with notice of intention to file a claim is a condition precedent to the right to apply for payment from [MVAIC]. Compliance with the statutory requirement of timely filing a notice of claim must be established in order to demonstrate that the claimant is a covered person, within the meaning of the statute, entitled to recover no-fault benefits from the MVAIC" (Avicenna Med. Arts, P.L.L.C. v MVAIC, 53 Misc 3d 142[A], 2016 NY Slip Op 51535[U], 1 [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2016] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; *see Insurance Law §§ 5208 [a] [1], [3]; 5221 [b] [2]). MVAIC established that it had not received such an affidavit. In opposition, plaintiff failed to establish that such an affidavit had been submitted to MVAIC. Consequently, the Civil Court should have granted defendant's motion and dismissed the complaint (see Oleg's Acupuncture, P.C. v MVAIC, 75 Misc 3d 140[A], 2022 NY Slip Op 50593[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th [2]& 13th Jud Dists 2022]; *Lantsman Acupuncture, P.C. v MVAIC, 75 Misc 3d 137[A], 2022 NY Slip Op 50568[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2022]).

Accordingly, the order, insofar as appealed from, is reversed and defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted.

TOUSSAINT, P.J., MUNDY and OTTLEY, JJ., concur.

ENTER:
Jennifer Chan
Chief Clerk
Decision Date: February 13, 2026