Tam Med. Supply Corp. v Citiwide Auto Leasing

[*1] Tam Med. Supply Corp. v Citiwide Auto Leasing 2016 NY Slip Op 50748(U) Decided on May 6, 2016 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 May 6, 2016
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 2d, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : PESCE, P.J., WESTON and SOLOMON, JJ.
2014-656 Q C

Tam Medical Supply Corp. as Assignee of JAMES BOUCICAULT, Appellant,

against

Citiwide Auto Leasing, Respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Larry Love, J.), entered February 28, 2014. The order denied plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and granted defendant's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

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

In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, plaintiff moved for summary judgment, and defendant cross-moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that defendant had timely and properly denied the claims based upon late notice of the accident and late submission of a claim form (see 11 NYCRR 65-2.4 [b], [c]). Plaintiff appeals from an order of the Civil Court which denied plaintiff's motion and granted defendant's cross motion.

Contrary to plaintiff's arguments on appeal, defendant established a proper practice and procedure of mailing of its denials (see St. Vincent's Hosp. of Richmond v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 50 AD3d 1123 [2008]), and that the denials containing the requisite language had been timely mailed (see General Construction Law §§ 25, 25-a; VS Care Acupuncture v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 46 Misc 3d 141[A], 2015 NY Slip Op 50164[U] [App Term, 1st Dept 2015]; see also General Construction Law § 20 [providing, in pertinent part, that "[t]he day from which any specified period of time is reckoned shall be excluded in making the reckoning"]). Plaintiff's remaining contention as to defendant's cross motion lacks merit. Thus, we leave the granting of defendant's cross motion undisturbed.

In light of the foregoing, we reach no other issue.

Accordingly, the order is affirmed.

Pesce, P.J., Weston and Solomon, JJ., concur.

Decision Date: May 06, 2016