March 1, 2011

M.N. Dental Diagnostics, P.C. v New York City Tr. Auth. (2011 NY Slip Op 01525)

Headnote

A provider sued the New York City Transit Authority for assigned first-party no-fault benefits, and the lower courts denied the Authority's motion to dismiss the complaint as time-barred. The Appellate Division noted that the no-fault law creates new statutory rights and obligations rather than codifying common-law principles. Because it was undisputed that no contract existed between the assignor and the Transit Authority, the Authority's obligation to pay benefits arose from the statute. The three-year limitations period of CPLR 214(2) therefore applied. The order was reversed, the motion granted and the complaint dismissed.

Reported in New York Official Reports at M.N. Dental Diagnostics, P.C. v New York City Tr. Auth. (2011 NY Slip Op 01525)

M.N. Dental Diagnostics, P.C. v New York City Tr. Auth.
2011 NY Slip Op 01525 [82 AD3d 409]
March 1, 2011
Appellate Division, First Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
As corrected through Wednesday, May 11, 2011


M.N. Dental Diagnostics, P.C., as Assignee of Luis Marte, Respondent,
v
New York City Transit Authority, Appellant.

—[*1] Jones Jones & O’Connell LLP, Brooklyn (Agnes Neiger of counsel), for appellant. Baker, Sanders, Barshay, Grossman, Fass, Muhlstock & Neuwirth, Garden City (Steven J. Neuwirth of counsel), for respondent.

Order of the Appellate Term of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department, entered on or about July 22, 2009, which affirmed an order, Civil Court, Bronx County (Fernando Tapia, J.), entered on or about January 29, 2008, denying defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as time-barred, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the motion granted and the complaint dismissed. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.

It is well settled that “the No-Fault Law does not codify common-law principles; it creates new and independent statutory rights and obligations in order to provide a more efficient means for adjusting financial responsibilities arising out of automobile accidents” (Aetna Life & Cas. Co. v Nelson, 67 NY2d 169, 175 [1986]). Since it is undisputed that there existed no contract between plaintiff’s assignor and the New York City Transit Authority, the common carrier’s obligation to provide no-fault benefits arises out of the no-fault statute. Therefore, the three-year statute of limitations as set forth in CPLR 214 (2) is applicable here. Concur—Gonzalez, P.J., Tom, Andrias, Renwick and Abdus-Salaam, JJ. [Prior Case History: 24 Misc 3d 139(A), 2009 NY Slip Op 51596(U).]