January 14, 2010

Synergy First Med. PLLC v ELRAC Inc. (2010 NY Slip Op 50048(U))

Headnote

A provider sued a rental car company for first-party no-fault benefits, and the Civil Court denied the defendant's motion for summary judgment. The defendant showed that the provider had not submitted proof of claim within the time required by 11 NYCRR 65-1.1 and 65-2.4. The provider's only explanation for the delay was a conclusory assertion of a staffing problem caused by an unidentified employee's family emergency. The Appellate Term held this did not raise a triable issue as to reasonable justification under 11 NYCRR 65-3.3(e), reversed, and granted summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Reported in New York Official Reports at Synergy First Med. PLLC v ELRAC Inc. (2010 NY Slip Op 50048(U))

[*1]
Synergy First Med. PLLC v ELRAC Inc.
2010 NY Slip Op 50048(U) [26 Misc 3d 131(A)]
Decided on January 14, 2010
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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 January 14, 2010
APPELLATE TERM OF THE SUPREME COURT, FIRST DEPARTMENT

PRESENT: Schoenfeld, J.P., Shulman, Hunter, JJ
570630/09.

Synergy First Medical PLLC, a/a/o Victoria Orozco, Plaintiff-Respondent, – –

against

ELRAC Inc. d/b/a Enterprise Rent A Car, Defendant-Appellant.


Defendant appeals from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Bronx County (Lizbeth Gonzalez, J.), entered June 30, 2009, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.


Per Curiam.

Order (Lizbeth Gonzalez, J.), entered June 30, 2009, reversed, without costs, and defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.
In opposition to defendant’s prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the ground that plaintiff did not submit timely proof of its claim for first-party no-fault benefits (see 11 NYCRR 65-1.1; 65-2.4), plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue with respect to whether it had a “reasonable justification” for its delay in submitting such proof (see 11 NYCRR 65-3.3[e]). Plaintiff’s bald and unelaborated assertion that the delay was attributable to a staffing issue, i.e., the absence of an (unidentified) employee responsible for preparing claims because of “a family emergency,” is, under the circumstances presented, insufficient to raise a triable issue (see generally Bronx Expert Radiology, P.C. v Motor Vehicle Acc. Indem. Corp., 20 Misc 3d 140[A] [2008]; NY Arthroscopy & Sports Medicine PLLC v Motor Veh. Acc. Indem. Corp., 15 Misc 3d 89 [2007]).
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.
I concurI concurI concur
Decision Date: January 14, 2010