July 21, 2017

Greenway Med. Supply Corp. v ELRAC, Inc. (2017 NY Slip Op 50950(U))

Headnote

The defendant's summary judgment dismissing the complaint was affirmed on its defense of untimely accident notice or proof of claim. The defense invoked the 30-day notice and 45-day proof requirements of 11 NYCRR 65-2.4 (a), (b) and (c). The Appellate Term, Second Department, relied on the reasons stated in Great Health Care Chiropractic, P.C. v Elrac, Inc.

Reported in New York Official Reports at Greenway Med. Supply Corp. v ELRAC, Inc. (2017 NY Slip Op 50950(U))

[*1]
Greenway Med. Supply Corp. v ELRAC, Inc.
2017 NY Slip Op 50950(U) [56 Misc 3d 134(A)]
Decided on July 21, 2017
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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 July 21, 2017
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 2d, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS

PRESENT: : MICHAEL L. PESCE, P.J., THOMAS P. ALIOTTA, MARTIN M. SOLOMON, JJ
2014-1276 K C

Greenway Medical Supply Corp., as Assignee of Pierre Jean, Appellant,

against

ELRAC, Inc., Respondent.


The Rybak Firm, PLLC (Damin J. Toell, Esq.), for appellant. Carman, Callahan & Ingham, LLP (Jeffrey P. Saxon, Esq.), for respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Carolyn E. Wade, J.), entered February 18, 2014. The order granted defendant’s 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, defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that plaintiff’s assignor and/or plaintiff had failed to comply with 11 NYCRR 65-2.4 (a), (b) and (c), which make it a condition precedent to coverage to provide written notice of an accident no later than 30 days after the accident and to submit written proof of claim no later than 45 days after health care supplies or services are furnished. Plaintiff opposed the motion, asserting facts and raising arguments similar to those raised by the plaintiff in Great Health Care Chiropractic, P.C. v Elrac, Inc. (48 Misc 3d 139[A], 2015 NY Slip Op 51223[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2015]). By order entered February 18, 2014, the Civil Court granted defendant’s motion.

For the reasons stated in Great Health Care Chiropractic, P.C. v Elrac, Inc. (48 Misc 3d 139[A], 2015 NY Slip Op 51223[U]), the order is affirmed.

PESCE, P.J., ALIOTTA and SOLOMON, JJ., concur.


ENTER:
Paul Kenny
Chief Clerk
Decision Date: July 21, 2017