From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Arguelles M.D. v. Am. Ind. Ins. Co.

Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Sep 23, 2022
2022 N.Y. Slip Op. 50926 (N.Y. App. Term 2022)

Opinion

No. 2019-1413 K C

09-23-2022

Arguelles M.D., P.C., as Assignee of Darvell Tribe, Respondent, v. American Independent Ins. Co., Omni Indemnity Company, American Independent Insurance Companies, Inc., and Good2Go Auto Insurance, Appellants.

Freiberg, Peck & Kang, LLP (Yilo J. Kang of counsel), for appellants. The Rybak Firm, PLLC (Oleg Rybak of counsel), for respondent (no brief filed).


Unpublished Opinion

Freiberg, Peck & Kang, LLP (Yilo J. Kang of counsel), for appellants.

The Rybak Firm, PLLC (Oleg Rybak of counsel), for respondent (no brief filed).

PRESENT:: THOMAS P. ALIOTTA, P.J., WAVNY TOUSSAINT, DONNA-MARIE E. GOLIA, JJ

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Lorna J. McAllister, J.), entered January 25, 2019. The order, insofar as appealed from, denied defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

ORDERED that the order, insofar as appealed from, is reversed, with $30 costs, and defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted.

In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, defendants appeal from so much of an order of the Civil Court as denied defendants' motion which had sought summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground, among others, that the action was barred by the statute of limitations.

In support of a cross motion for summary judgment, plaintiff submitted an affidavit by plaintiff's owner who asserted that the subject claim forms were submitted to defendants on or before October 20, 2007, that the claims had not been paid, and that statutory interest was to be computed as of 30 days after each claim's submission. Consequently, the payment due date, as implicitly alleged by plaintiff in its complaint and in the affidavit by plaintiff's owner, must be deemed to have been in November 2007, that is, 30 days after defendants' receipt of the claims (see Insurance Law § 5106 [a]; 11 NYCRR 65-3.8; Shtarkman v MVAIC, 20 Misc.3d 132 [A], 2008 NY Slip Op 51447[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2008]). Plaintiff did not commence this action until 2018, after the six-year statute of limitations for contract actions, which is applicable to this cause of action (see CPLR 213 [2]; Mandarino v Travelers Prop. Cas. Ins. Co., 37 A.D.3d 775 [2007]), had expired. As plaintiff raised no issue of fact as to the timeliness of the action, defendants' motion to dismiss based on the statute of limitations should have been granted (see A.M. Med., P.C. v Continental Ins. Co., 47 Misc.3d 128 [A], 2015 NY Slip Op 50389[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2015]; DJS Med. Supplies, Inc. v Clarendon Natl. Ins. Co., 32 Misc.3d 129 [A], 2011 NY Slip Op 51304[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2011]).

Accordingly, the order, insofar as appealed from, is reversed and defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted.

ALIOTTA, P.J., TOUSSAINT and GOLIA, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Arguelles M.D. v. Am. Ind. Ins. Co.

Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Sep 23, 2022
2022 N.Y. Slip Op. 50926 (N.Y. App. Term 2022)
Case details for

Arguelles M.D. v. Am. Ind. Ins. Co.

Case Details

Full title:Arguelles M.D., P.C., as Assignee of Darvell Tribe, Respondent, v…

Court:Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Sep 23, 2022

Citations

2022 N.Y. Slip Op. 50926 (N.Y. App. Term 2022)