| Bronx Expert Radiology, P.C. v Motor Veh. Acc. Indem. Corp. |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 51612(U) [20 Misc 3d 140(A)] |
| Decided on July 28, 2008 |
| 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| This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports. |
Defendant appeals from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Bronx County
(Lizbeth Gonzalez, J.), dated January 23, 2007, which denied its motion for summary judgment
dismissing the complaint.
Per Curiam.
Order (Lizbeth Gonzalez, J.), dated January 23, 2007, reversed, with $10 costs, and defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint granted. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.
In this action to recover no fault benefits, defendant Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corporation (MVAIC) established its prima facie entitlement to summary judgment by submitting evidence that health care services were rendered to plaintiff's assignor on November 23, 2005, that plaintiff submitted its proof of claims to MVAIC on April 26, 2006, and that MVAIC denied the claims based on plaintiff's untimely submissions of proof of claims and afforded plaintiff the opportunity to provide "reasonable justification" for its delay (see 11 NYCRR 65-3.3 [e]).
In opposition, plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue. Even assuming that plaintiff's submission of the claims to New York Central Mutual Fire Insurance Company, on or about December 22, 2005, was inadvertent and justified plaintiff's initial delay in submitting the claim to MVAIC (see 11 NYCRR 65-3.5[l]), plaintiff failed to provide a "reasonable justification" for the three-month delay between January 16, 2006, when it was apprised of New York Central's denial of no-fault benefits based on the cancellation of the insurance policy prior to the date of the accident, and April 26, 2006, when it submitted its claims to MVAIC (see (see 11 NYCRR 65-1.1; N.Y. Arthroscopy & Sports Medicine PLLC v Motor Veh. Acc. Indem. Corp., 15 Misc 3d 89 [2007]).
We have considered plaintiff's remaining arguments and find them unavailing.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.
I concurI concurI concur
[*2]
Decision Date: July 28, 2008