Appeal from an order of the District Court of Suffolk County, Third District (C. Steven Hackeling, J.), dated September 15, 2006. The order denied defendant's motion for partial summary judgment dismissing the first, second, fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth, tenth, eleventh and twelfth causes of action asserted in the complaint.

Order reversed without costs and defendant's motion for partial summary judgment dismissing the first, second, fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth, tenth, eleventh and twelfth causes of action asserted in the complaint granted.

In this action by providers to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, defendant moved for partial summary judgment dismissing the first, second, fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth, tenth, eleventh and twelfth causes of action asserted in the complaint on the ground that the claims giving rise to said causes of action were submitted to defendant beyond the 45-day deadline set forth in the automobile insurance policy's Mandatory Personal Injury Protection Endorsement (Endorsement). The sole basis upon which plaintiff opposed defendant's motion was that defendant did not establish that the 45-day deadline was contained in the Endorsement [*2]which was part of the applicable automobile insurance policy. The court denied defendant's motion, holding that defendant failed to prove that plaintiff's claims were subject to the 45-day deadline. This appeal by defendant ensued.

The Endorsement, which was required to be included in automobile insurance policies issued or renewed after April 5, 2002, reduced the time within which claims were to be submitted to insurers after the date services were rendered from 180 days to 45 days (Insurance Department Regulations [11 NYCRR] § 65.12 [e], now Insurance Department Regulations [11 NYCRR] § 65-1.1 [b]; see S & M Supply v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 4 Misc 3d 130[A], 2004 NY Slip Op 50693[U] [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2004]). Pursuant to Insurance Law § 3425 (a) (8), the policy period for newly issued and renewed automobile insurance policies is one year (see also Rosner v Metropolitan Prop. & Liab. Ins. Co., 96 NY2d 475 [2001]). In the instant case, the plaintiffs' assignor was allegedly injured in an automobile accident on November 12, 2004 and defendant received plaintiff's claims for the services at issue more than 45 days after the services were rendered. Since an automobile insurance policy which contained the prior version of the Endorsement would have expired no later than in April 2003 (see Insurance Law § 3425 [8]), the automobile insurance policy applicable to the claims at issue in the instant case was required to contain the current Endorsement which sets forth the 45-day time limit for the submission of claims (Insurance Department Regulations [11 NYCRR] § 65-1.1 [b]; see S & M Supply v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 4 Misc 3d 130[A], 2004 NY Slip Op 50693[U] [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2004], supra) and defendant need not prove that the instant automobile insurance policy contained such Endorsement.

In view of the foregoing, defendant's motion for partial summary judgment dismissing the first, second, fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth, tenth, eleventh and twelfth causes of action asserted in the complaint should have been granted since it was undisputed that defendant's timely denial of claim forms denied the subject claims based upon plaintiff's failure to submit said claims within 45 days after the date the services were rendered and the record reveals that plaintiffs failed to proffer admissible evidence demonstrating that there was a "reasonable justification" for the untimely submission of the claims (St. Vincent's Hosp. & Med. Ctr. v Country Wide Ins. Co., 24 AD3d 748 [2005]; Nir v MVAIC, 17 Misc 3d 134[A], 2007 NY Slip Op 52124[U] [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2007]; NY Arthroscopy & Sports Medicine PLLC v Motor Veh. Acc. Indem. Corp., 15 Misc 3d 89 [App Term, 1st Dept 2007]).

McCabe, J.P., Tanenbaum and Molia, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: March 10, 2008