SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 2d, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS New York Supreme and/or Appellate Courts
March 15, 2013
NORMAN Y. SCHOENBERG, M.D., P.C. AS ASSIGNEE OF ODELL MULLINGS, RESPONDENT, --
N.Y.C. TRANSIT AUTHORITY, APPELLANT.
Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Reginald A. Boddie, J.), entered September 19, 2011.
Norman Y. Schoenberg, M.D., P.C. v N.Y.C. Tr. Auth.
Decided on March 15, 2013
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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.
PRESENT: RIOS, J.P., PESCE and ALIOTTA, JJ
The order, insofar as appealed from, 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 appeals from so much of an order of the Civil Court as denied its unopposed motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
In support of its motion for summary judgment, defendant proffered an affidavit by its claims examiner, which was sufficient to establish that defendant's denial of claim form had been timely mailed (see St. Vincent's Hosp. of Richmond v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 50 AD3d 1123 ; Delta Diagnostic Radiology, P.C. v Chubb Group of Ins., 17 Misc 3d 16 [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2007]) and that plaintiff had submitted its claim to defendant more than 45 days after the date the services had been rendered to plaintiff's assignor (see Insurance Department Regulations [11 NYCRR] § 65-2.4). Defendant's denial of claim form adequately advised plaintiff of the basis for the denial, and it further advised plaintiff that the late submission of the claim would be excused if plaintiff provided a reasonable justification for the lateness. Defendant annexed to its motion papers a letter from plaintiff's attorney, who stated that, initially, the claim had been inadvertently submitted to a different carrier, but he failed to proffer any explanation as to why that had happened. Under the circumstances, defendant's moving papers properly established its prima facie entitlement to summary judgment, and, therefore, its unopposed motion should have been granted (see Prestige Med. & Surgical Supply, Inc. v Chubb Indem. Ins. Co., 26 Misc 3d 145[A], 2010 NY Slip Op 50449[U] [App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2010]).
Accordingly, the order, insofar as appealed from, is reversed and defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted. Rios, J.P., Pesce and Aliotta, JJ., concur. Decision Date: March 15, 2013
© 1992-2013 VersusLaw Inc.