February 1, 2006

Maximum Care Chiropractic Care, P.C. v Granite State Ins. Co. (2006 NY Slip Op 50116(U))

Headnote

The court considered the fact that the plaintiff was seeking recovery of no-fault benefits for an assignor as a result of a 2001 automobile accident. The main issue decided was whether the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint should be granted. The court held that the defendant's motion for summary judgment should have been granted, as neither the plaintiff nor their assignor submitted written notice of the accident to the defendant within the required 90-day period, nor did they provide proof that they were unable to comply with the time limitation due to circumstances beyond their control. The court also noted that the lower court disposed of the motion without providing any explanation or reason for its decision, which was a practice to be avoided.

Reported in New York Official Reports at Maximum Care Chiropractic Care, P.C. v Granite State Ins. Co. (2006 NY Slip Op 50116(U))

Maximum Care Chiropractic Care, P.C. v Granite State Ins. Co. (2006 NY Slip Op 50116(U)) [*1]

Maximum Care Chiropractic Care, P.C. v Granite State Ins. Co.

2006 NY Slip Op 50116(U) [10 Misc 3d 144(A)]

Decided on February 1, 2006

Appellate Term, First 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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 February 1, 2006

APPELLATE TERM OF THE SUPREME COURT, FIRST DEPARTMENT

PRESENT: SUAREZ, P.J., McCOOE, SCHOENFELD, JJ
570845/05.

Maximum Care Chiropractic Care, P.C., Assignee of Noyota Johnson, Plaintiff-Respondent,
against
Granite State Insurance Company, Defendant-Appellant.

Defendant appeals from an order of the Civil Court, Bronx County (Fernando Tapia, J.), entered May 24, 2005, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

PER CURIAM:
Order (Fernando Tapia, J.), entered May 24, 2005, reversed, with $10 costs, and defendant’s motion for summary judgment is granted. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of defendant dismissing the complaint.

Plaintiff seeks recovery of no-fault benefits allegedly due its assignor as a result of a 2001 automobile accident. Civil Court denied defendant’s unopposed summary judgment motion, finding the existence of an unspecified “triable issue of fact.” The record reveals that neither plaintiff nor its assignor submitted written notice of the accident to defendant within the requisite 90-day period (cf. Allcity Ins. Co. v Novas, 272 AD2d 116 [2000]), nor did they submit proof that they were unable to comply with such time limitation due to circumstances beyond their control (see Medical Society of State v. Serio, 100 NY2d 854, 868 [2003]). Accordingly, defendant’s motion for summary judgment should have been granted.

We note that the court disposed of the motion without providing any explanation or reason for its decision, a practice to be avoided (see Nadle v L.O. Realty Corp., 286 AD2d 130 [2001]).

This constitutes the decision and order of the court. [*2]
Decision Date: February 01, 2006