Opinion
No. 2021-686 K C
12-02-2022
AKNY Physical Therapy, PLLC, as Assignee of Altamirano, Alex Armando, Appellant, v. Lancer Insurance Co., Respondent.
The Rybak Firm, PLLC (Damin J. Toell and Richard Rozhik of counsel), for appellant. The Chartwell Law Offices, LLP, for respondent (no brief filed).
Unpublished Opinion
The Rybak Firm, PLLC (Damin J. Toell and Richard Rozhik of counsel), for appellant.
The Chartwell Law Offices, LLP, for respondent (no brief filed).
PRESENT:: THOMAS P. ALIOTTA, P.J., WAVNY TOUSSAINT, CHEREÉ A. BUGGS, JJ.
Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Rupert V. Barry, J.), entered September 27, 2021. 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 granting defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and denying plaintiff's cross motion for summary judgment as untimely pursuant to a schedule which the parties had stipulated to more than a year earlier.
On appeal, plaintiff does not argue that defendant's motion was insufficient to make a prima facie showing of defendant's entitlement to summary judgment. Moreover, plaintiff does not assert that its cross motion, which was also opposition to defendant's motion, raised any triable issues of fact. Instead, plaintiff merely asserts that the court should not have denied plaintiff's cross motion as untimely and, therefore, that both defendant's and plaintiff's motions should be remitted to the Civil Court for consideration. However, plaintiff does not argue, much less establish, that its cross motion was timely under the parties' schedule, or set forth a reasonable excuse for its failure to cross-move during the seven months it had to do so (see Pavlova v 21st Century Ins. Co., 75 Misc.3d 127 [A], 2022 NY Slip Op 50363[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2022]). Consequently, we find no basis to disturb the Civil Court's refusal to review plaintiff's papers.
Accordingly, the order is affirmed.
ALIOTTA, P.J., TOUSSAINT and BUGGS, JJ., concur.