September 27, 2016
Natural Therapy Acupuncture, P.C. v MVAIC (2016 NY Slip Op 51416(U))
https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/natural-therapy-acupuncture-p-c-v-mvaic-2016-ny-slip-op-51416u/
- Court
- Appellate Term, Second Department
- Decided
- September 27, 2016
- Citation
- 2016 NY Slip Op 51416(U) · 53 Misc 3d 133(A)
- Posture
- Summary judgment
- Outcome
- Insurer prevailed
- Issues
- Statute of limitations MVAIC
- Legal questions
- No-fault statute of limitations (see the maps)
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.
Reported in New York Official Reports at Natural Therapy Acupuncture, P.C. v MVAIC (2016 NY Slip Op 51416(U))
[*1]| Natural Therapy Acupuncture, P.C. v MVAIC |
| 2016 NY Slip Op 51416(U) [53 Misc 3d 133(A)] |
| Decided on September 27, 2016 |
| 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| This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 September 27, 2016
PRESENT: : PESCE, P.J., ALIOTTA and SOLOMON, JJ.
2014-768 Q C
against
MVAIC, Respondent.
Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Ulysses Bernard Leverett, J.), entered March 18, 2014. The order denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and granted defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with $25 costs.
In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Civil Court which denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, and granted the cross motion by defendant Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corporation (sued herein as MVAIC) for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the action is barred by the statute of limitations.
A defendant moving to dismiss a complaint on statute of limitations grounds bears the initial burden of establishing, prima facie, that the time in which to commence the action has expired (see 6D Farm Corp. v Carr, 63 AD3d 903 [2009]; Island ADC, Inc. v Baldassano Architectural Group, P.C., 49 AD3d 815 [2008]). In the case at bar, MVAIC established that the action had been commenced after the expiration of the three-year statute of limitations. In opposition, plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to the timeliness of the action (see Precision Radiology Servs., P.C. v MVAIC, 34 Misc 3d 126[A], 2011 NY Slip Op 52274[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2011]; Kings Highway Diagnostic Imaging, P.C. v MVAIC, 19 Misc 3d 69 [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2008]).
Accordingly, the order is affirmed.
Pesce, P.J., Aliotta and Solomon, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: September 27, 2016
Legal questions
A question of no-fault law this decision rules on, from our Legal Questions pages. Bars count the decisions on the question by year and court, coloured by category; circles are this decision and the decisions on the question it cites or that cite it. Point at a bar or circle for details. The categories and summaries are Beynenson Law’s classification, made by a language model and checked by a second reading.
Which limitations period governs a first-party no-fault claim against an insurer, self-insurer or MVAIC: six or three years?
This decision: Claim against MVAIC carries the three-year statutory period (CPLR 214 [2]) (rules on the question, but another ground decided the case)
Applied the three-year limitations period to the claim against MVAIC and affirmed dismissal because MVAIC showed the action was commenced after three years and plaintiff raised no triable issue.
Of the 56 decisions on this question in the Second Department courts and the Court of Appeals, 24 (this one included) are in the same category.
Cited in this decision
A label shows how this decision treated the case it cites.
- Precision Radiology Servs., P.C. v MVAIC (2011 NY Slip Op 52274(U)) FollowedMVAIC's summary judgment motion was granted because it established that the provider's action was commenced after the limitations period expired.
- Kings Highway Diagnostic Imaging, P.C. v MVAIC (2008 NY Slip Op 28157) FollowedA provider's claim against MVAIC was time-barred because untimely verification did not postpone accrual.
Similar decisions
- Flatbush Chiropractic, P.C. v MVAIC (2015 NY Slip Op 51232(U))MVAIC established that the provider's action was commenced after the three-year statute of limitations expired.
- Reliable Physical Therapy, P.C. v MVAIC (2016 NY Slip Op 50919(U))MVAIC's summary judgment motion based on the three-year statute of limitations was granted on appeal.
- Acupuncture Works, P.C. v MVAIC (2010 NY Slip Op 50646(U))The provider's action against MVAIC was barred by the three-year limitation because later denials did not postpone the payment due date.
- Cautious Care Med., P.C. v MVAIC (2019 NY Slip Op 50279(U))MVAIC established that the provider commenced its no-fault action after the three-year statute of limitations expired.
- Compas Med., P.C. v MVAIC (2019 NY Slip Op 51687(U))MVAIC established that the provider's action was commenced after the three-year statute of limitations expired.