Americhoice Med., P.C. v Motor Veh. Acc. Indem. Co.

[*1] Americhoice Med., P.C. v Motor Veh. Acc. Indem. Co. 2013 NY Slip Op 51742(U) Decided on October 10, 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on October 10, 2013
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 2d, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : PESCE, P.J., ALIOTTA and SOLOMON, JJ
2011-2947 K C.

Americhoice Medical, P.C. as Assignee of CANDACE WAUCHOPE, Respondent,

against

Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Company, Appellant.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Nancy M. Bannon, J.), entered September 7, 2011. The order denied defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

ORDERED that the order is reversed, without 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 (MVAIC) appeals from an order of the Civil Court which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

It is undisputed that plaintiff was required to submit its claim form to MVAIC within 45 days after the services at issue had been rendered (see Insurance Department Regulations [11 NYCRR] § 65-1.1; AAA Chiropractic, P.C. v MVAIC, 29 Misc 3d 131[A], 2010 NY Slip Op 51896[U] [App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2010]; Nir v MVAIC, 17 Misc 3d 134[A], 2007 NY Slip Op 52124[U] [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2007]; NY Arthroscopy & Sports Medicine PLLC v Motor Veh. Acc. Indem. Corp., 15 Misc 3d 89 [App Term, 1st Dept 2007]) and that plaintiff did not do so. MVAIC's denial of plaintiff's claim, based upon its untimely submission, also informed plaintiff that it could excuse the delay if plaintiff provided "written justification" for the delay (see Insurance Department Regulations [11 NYCRR] § 65-3.3 [e]; see also Matter of Medical Socy. of State of NY v Serio, 100 NY2d 854, 862-863 [2003]; Nir, 17 Misc 3d 134[A], 2007 NY Slip Op 52124[U]). Since plaintiff failed to do so, MVAIC's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint should have been granted.

Accordingly, the order is reversed and MVAIC's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted.

Pesce, P.J., Aliotta and Solomon, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: October 10, 2013