April 9, 2009

Bronx Expert Radiology, P.C. v Motor Veh. Acc. Indem. Corp. (2009 NY Slip Op 50621(U))

Headnote

A provider sued MVAIC for no-fault benefits after first submitting its claims to another insurer, Seminole Casualty. MVAIC moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on timeliness grounds. The Appellate Term assumed the submission to Seminole was inadvertent and justified an initial delay in submitting the claims to MVAIC. It held that the provider still failed to give a reasonable justification for the six-month delay between learning of Seminole's denial and submitting the claims to MVAIC. The order was reversed, the motion was granted and the complaint was dismissed.

Reported in New York Official Reports at Bronx Expert Radiology, P.C. v Motor Veh. Acc. Indem. Corp. (2009 NY Slip Op 50621(U))

[*1]
Bronx Expert Radiology, P.C. v Motor Veh. Acc. Indem. Corp.
2009 NY Slip Op 50621(U) [23 Misc 3d 129(A)]
Decided on April 9, 2009
Appellate Term, First Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
As corrected in part through April 21, 2009; it will not be published in the printed Official Reports.


Decided on April 9, 2009
APPELLATE TERM OF THE SUPREME COURT, FIRST DEPARTMENT

PRESENT: McKeon, P.J., Schoenfeld, Heitler, JJ
570668/08. Bronx Expert Radiology, P.C. a/a/o Yaritza Marte, Plaintiff-Respondent, against Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corp., Defendant-Appellant.

Bronx Expert Radiology, P.C.

against

Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corp., Defendant-Appellant.


Defendant, as limited by the briefs, appeals from so much of an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Bronx County (Mitchell J. Danziger, J.), entered April 26, 2008, as denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.


Per Curiam.

Order (Mitchell J. Danziger, J.), entered April 26, 2008, insofar as appealed from, reversed, with $10 costs, motion granted and complaint dismissed. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.

Defendant’s motion for summary judgment should have been granted. Even assuming that plaintiff’s submission of the claims for no-fault benefits to Seminole Casualty Insurance Company was inadvertent and justified plaintiff’s initial delay in submitting the claims to defendant (see 11 NYCRR 65-3.5[l]), plaintiff has failed to provide a “reasonable justification” for the six-month delay between the date it was apprised of Seminole Casualty’s denial of benefits and its submission of the claims to defendant (see NY Arthroscopy & Sports Medicine PLLC v Motor Veh. Acc. Indem. Corp., 15 Misc 3d 89 [2007]; Bronx Expert Radiology, P.C. v Motor Veh. Acc. Indem. Corp., 20 Misc 3d 140[A], 2008 NY Slip Op 51612[U] [2008]). We have considered plaintiff’s remaining arguments and find them unavailing.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.
I concur
Decision Date: April 09, 2009