|Active Care Med. Supply Corp. v Hartford Ins. Co.|
|2018 NY Slip Op 51591(U) [61 Misc 3d 139(A)]|
|Decided on November 9, 2018|
|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|This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.|
The Rybak Firm, PLLC (Damin J. Toell of counsel), for appellant. The Law Office of Tobias & Kuhn (Marisa Villeda of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Richard J. Montelione, J.), entered December 17, 2015. The order granted defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and denied plaintiff's cross motion for summary judgment.
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 granted defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and denied plaintiff's cross motion for summary judgment. The court found that defendant had established that there was no coverage for no-fault benefits since defendant had demonstrated that the Workers' Compensation Board had awarded workers' compensation benefits to plaintiff's assignor for injuries she had sustained in the accident which gave rise to the claims at issue.
Contrary to plaintiff's contention, a lack of coverage defense may be raised without regard to any issue as to the propriety or timeliness of an insurer's denial of claim form (see Zappone v Home Ins. Co., 55 NY2d 131, 135-136  [lack of coverage defense is not precluded]; see also Central Gen. Hosp. v Chubb Group of Ins. Cos., 90 NY2d 195 ). The papers submitted by defendant in support of its motion, and by plaintiff in support of its cross motion, established that plaintiff had submitted claims for workers' compensation benefits and that the Workers' Compensation Board had awarded plaintiff's assignor workers' compensation benefits [*2]for injuries she had sustained in the accident at issue. As plaintiff failed to demonstrate the existence of a triable issue of fact, the order is affirmed.
PESCE, P.J., ALIOTTA and ELLIOT, JJ., concur.