January 20, 2016

Contact Chiropractic, P.C. v New York City Tr. Auth. (2016 NY Slip Op 00325)

Headnote

A provider sued the New York City Transit Authority, a self-insured entity, to recover first-party no-fault benefits as assignee. The Transit Authority moved for summary judgment on the ground that the action was time-barred, and the courts below denied that branch of the motion. The Second Department held that an action by an injured claimant or assignee against a self-insured defendant for first-party no-fault benefits is subject to a six-year statute of limitations because the claim is essentially contractual. The statute of limitations had therefore not expired, and the Appellate Term's order was affirmed.

Reported in New York Official Reports at Contact Chiropractic, P.C. v New York City Tr. Auth. (2016 NY Slip Op 00325)

Contact Chiropractic, P.C. v New York City Tr. Auth.
2016 NY Slip Op 00325 [135 AD3d 804]
January 20, 2016
Appellate Division, Second Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
As corrected through Wednesday, March 2, 2016


[*1]
 Contact Chiropractic, P.C., as Assignee of Girtha Butler, Respondent,
v
New York City Transit Authority, Appellant.

Jones Jones LLC, New York, NY (Agnes Neiger of counsel), for appellant.

Law Office of Cohen & Jaffe, LLP, Lake Success, NY (Aaron J. Perretta of counsel), for respondent.

In an action to recover no-fault benefits under a policy of automobile insurance, the defendant appeals, by permission, from an order of the Appellate Term of the Supreme Court for the Second, Eleventh, and Thirteenth Judicial Districts dated December 3, 2013, which affirmed so much of an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Latin, J.), dated July 27, 2011, as, upon renewal, adhered to the original determination in an order of the same court (Lebedeff, J.), dated December 4, 2007, denying that branch of its motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as time-barred.

Ordered that the order dated December 3, 2013, is affirmed, with costs.

The Appellate Term correctly determined that an action by an injured claimant, or his or her assignee, to recover first-party no-fault benefits from a defendant who is self-insured, is subject to a six-year statute of limitations, since the claim is essentially contractual, as opposed to statutory, in nature (see Matter of New York City Tr. Auth. v Powell, 126 AD3d 705 [2015]; Matter of New York City Tr. Auth. v Hill, 107 AD3d 897 [2013]; Matter of ELRAC Inc., v Suero, 38 AD3d 544 [2007]; Mandarino v Travelers Prop. Cas. Ins. Co., 37 AD3d 775 [2007]).

Accordingly, it was properly determined that the statute of limitations had not expired when this action was commenced. Dillon, J.P., Dickerson, Miller and Duffy, JJ., concur.