|Karina K. Acupuncture PC v MVAIC|
|2017 NY Slip Op 50537(U) [55 Misc 3d 138(A)]|
|Decided on April 21, 2017|
|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|This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.|
Plaintiff appeals from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County (Tanya R. Kennedy, J.), entered June 29, 2015, which granted defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and denied plaintiff's cross motion for preclusion and summary judgment in the principal sum of $5,674.18.
Order (Tanya R. Kennedy, J.), entered June 29, 2015, affirmed, with $10 costs. Defendant MVAIC demonstrated entitlement to summary judgment dismissing this action for first-party no-fault benefits, having established that plaintiff's assignor failed to comply with the statutory requirement that notice of the accident be given "to a police, peace, or judicial officer" within 24 hours of the occurrence (Insurance Law § 5208[a][A]). Defendant's submissions include the notice of intent to make claim, which does not indicate when, if at any point, the underlying accident was reported to the police, and affidavits demonstrating that repeated requests were made to the assignor for proof that the accident was reported and that the assignor never provided such proof (see Optimal Well-Being Chiropractic, P.C. v MVAIC, 41 Misc 3d 131[A], 2013 NY Slip Op 51751[U] [App Term, 2d, 11th and 13th Jud Dists 2013]). In opposition, plaintiff neither disputed that its assignor failed to report the accident within the requisite 24-hour period nor proffered any reasonable excuse for his failure to do so (see Insurance Law §5208[a][B]; Pomona Med. Diagnostics, P.C. v MVAIC, 34 Misc 3d 131[A], 2011 NY Slip Op 52347[U] [App Term, 1st Dept 2011]). Plaintiff's remaining contentions are either without merit or, where plaintiff failed to articulate any specific arguments in its appellate briefs, abandoned on appeal (see Mendoza v Akerman Senterfitt LLP, 128 AD3d 480, 483 ).
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.