December 15, 2009

Mid Atl. Med., P.C. v Electric Ins. Co. (2009 NY Slip Op 52597(U))

https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/mid-atl-med-p-c-v-electric-ins-co-2009-ny-slip-op-52597u/

Court: Appellate Term, Second Department
Decided: December 15, 2009
Citation: 2009 NY Slip Op 52597(U) · 26 Misc 3d 126(A)
Posture: Summary judgment
Outcome: Insurer prevailed
Issues: Timeliness and preclusion

Cite as

Mid Atl. Med., P.C. v Electric Ins. Co., 26 Misc 3d 126(A), 2009 NY Slip Op 52597(U) (App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2009)

Posture, outcome, issues and treatment by other decisions are Beynenson Law’s classification. Treatment labels are assigned by a language model reading the citing decision; negative and appeal-history labels are checked by a second reader.

Summary

Editorial summary by Beynenson Law, not part of the court’s decision.

The provider's challenges to the insurer's affidavit and late-notice denial were waived because they were first raised on appeal. The Appellate Term, Second Department, affirmed denial of the provider's summary judgment motion and dismissal on the insurer's cross motion. The Civil Court had found untimely notice under 11 NYCRR 65-1.1 and no reasonable justification under 11 NYCRR 65-3.3 (e). The appellate objection under CPLR 2309 (c) was unpreserved. So was the argument that the denial omitted the required advice that reasonable justification could excuse late notice. That argument differed from the provider's contention below that the insurer had failed to demonstrate the absence of reasonable justification.

Reported in New York Official Reports at Mid Atl. Med., P.C. v Electric Ins. Co. (2009 NY Slip Op 52597(U))

[*1]

Mid Atl. Med., P.C. v Electric Ins. Co.

2009 NY Slip Op 52597(U) [26 Misc 3d 126(A)]

Decided on December 15, 2009

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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 December 15, 2009

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

APPELLATE TERM: 2nd, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS

PRESENT: : GOLIA, J.P., PESCE and WESTON, JJ
2008-1229 K C.

Mid Atlantic Medical, P.C. a/a/o EDWIN NUNEZ, Appellant,
against
Electric Insurance Co., Respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Wavny Toussaint, J.), entered February 26, 2008. The order denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and granted defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed without costs.

In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, plaintiff appeals from an order which denied its motion for summary judgment and granted defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that plaintiff had failed to submit a timely notice of claim (Insurance Department Regulations [11 NYCRR] § 65-1.1) and that plaintiff had failed to provide a “reasonable justification of the failure to give timely notice” (Insurance Department Regulations [11 NYCRR] § 65-3.3 [e]).

On appeal, plaintiff contends that defendant is not entitled to summary judgment because the affidavit of defendant’s no-fault adjuster is inadmissible inasmuch as it failed to comply with CPLR 2309 (c). However, as this contention is raised for the first time on appeal, it is waived (see Mani Med., P.C. v NY Cent. Mut. Ins. Co., 19 Misc 3d 128[A], 2008 NY Slip Op 50508[U] [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2008]; Infinity Health Prods. Ltd. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 16 Misc 3d 135[A], 2007 NY Slip Op 51611[U] [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2007]). Plaintiff further argues that defendant is precluded from relying upon plaintiff’s untimely notice of claim because defendant’s denial of claim form did not advise plaintiff that “late notice will be excused where the applicant can provide reasonable justification of the failure to give timely notice,” as required by Insurance Department Regulations (11 NYCRR) § 65-3.3 (e). Said issue was likewise raised for the first time on appeal, as it differs from plaintiff’s contention in the Civil Court, which did not challenge the sufficiency of defendant’s denial of claim form but, [*2]rather, asserted that defendant did not demonstrate that plaintiff had failed to
provide a reasonable justification for the untimely notice of claim. Consequently, this contention by plaintiff is similarly waived. Accordingly, the order is affirmed.

Golia, J.P., Pesce and Weston, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: December 15, 2009

Cited in this decision

A label shows how this decision treated the case it cites.

Mani Med., P.C. v NY Cent. Mut. Ins. Co. (2008 NY Slip Op 50508(U)) FollowedThe insurer's accident-reconstruction evidence raised a triable issue whether the assignor's injuries arose from the insured accident.
Infinity Health Prods. Ltd. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (2007 NY Slip Op 51611(U)) FollowedThe insurer's investigator's affidavit raised a triable coverage issue, and the provider waived its CPLR 2309 (c) objection.

Similar decisions

Medical Careworks, P.C. v American Tr. Ins. Co. (2012 NY Slip Op 51281(U))The insurer established late notice of the accident, and the provider offered neither contrary proof nor a reasonable justification.
Compas Med., P.C. v ELRAC, Inc. (2016 NY Slip Op 51497(U))The defendant established untimely accident notice, timely denials, and the absence of a reasonable justification for the delay.
Healthway Med. Care, P.C. v Country Wide Ins. Co. (2015 NY Slip Op 51654(U))The insurer established late notice of the accident, and the provider offered no proof of timely notice or a reasonable justification.
Ukon Med. Care, P.C. v Clarendon Natl. Ins. Co. (2012 NY Slip Op 52176(U))The insurer established that accident notice was late, and the provider offered neither contrary proof nor justification for the delay.
New York Diagnostic Med. Care, P.C. v Geico Gen. Ins. Co. (2014 NY Slip Op 51808(U))The provider failed to establish that the insurer's denials were untimely or legally insufficient, defeating its prima facie showing.