Opinion
No. 2013–2705Q C.
10-11-2016
COMPAS MEDICAL, P.C., as Assignee of Daniel Joseph, Appellant, v. ELRAC, INC., Respondent.
Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (William A. Viscovich, J.), entered November 19, 2013. The order granted defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with $25 costs.
In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the claims at issue had been timely denied based upon the failure of plaintiff's assignor and/or plaintiff to provide timely written notice of the accident at issue (see 11 NYCRR 65–2.4 [a], [b] ). The Civil Court granted defendant's motion.
Contrary to plaintiff's argument, defendant conclusively established that the documents providing notice of the subject accident had not been mailed until July 7, 2010, by submitting a photocopy of the envelope in which defendant first received the documents, on which both the postage and the postmark are dated July 7, 2010, and that they therefore had not been submitted to defendant within the time frame required by 11 NYCRR 65–2.4(b) (cf. CPLR 2103[b] [2] ; [f][1]; Kresch v. Saul, 29 AD3d 863 [2006] ). Consequently, neither plaintiff nor plaintiff's assignor complied with a condition precedent to coverage (see 11 NYCRR 65–2.4 [a], [b] ).
Plaintiff also argues that defendant failed to prove that it had timely denied the claims. However, defendant submitted an affidavit by an employee of its third-party administrator, which affidavit sufficiently established the timely mailing of the denial of claim forms (see St. Vincent's Hosp. of Richmond v. Government Empls. Ins. Co., 50 AD3d 1123 [2008] ). Furthermore, the denial of claim forms advised plaintiff that the late notice of claim would "be excused should the applicant or the assignee provide reasonable justification for the failure to give timely notice" (see 11 NYCRR 65–3.3 [e]; Radiology Today, P.C. v. Citiwide Auto Leasing Inc., 15 Misc.3d 92 [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2007] ). Defendant established that no such justification was provided. Thus, defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint was properly granted (see Great Health Care Chiropractic, P.C. v. Elrac, Inc., 48 Misc.3d 139[A], 2015 N.Y. Slip Op 51223[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2015] ).
Accordingly, the order is affirmed.
PESCE, P.J., ALIOTTA and SOLOMON, JJ., concur.