Opinion
No. 2010–2156KC.
2012-08-24
FIVE BORO PSYCHOLOGICAL SERVICES, P.C. as Assignee of Iris Rodriguez, Appellant, v. MVAIC, Respondent.
Present: PESCE, P.J., WESTON and RIOS, JJ.
Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Peter Paul Sweeney, J.), entered November 2, 2009. 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, without 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 a motion by defendant Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corporation (sued herein as MVAIC) for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and denied plaintiff's cross motion for summary judgment.
It is undisputed that plaintiff was required to submit its claim form to MVAIC within 45 days after the services at issue had been rendered ( see Insurance Department Regulations [11 NYCRR] § 65–1 .1; AAA Chiropractic, P.C. v. MVAIC, 29 Misc.3d 131[A], 2010 N.Y. Slip Op 51896[U] [App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2010]; Nir v.. MVAIC, 17 Misc.3d 134[A], 2007 N.Y. Slip Op 52124[U] [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2007]; NY Arthroscopy & Sports Medicine PLLC v. Motor Veh. Acc. Indem. Corp., 15 Misc.3d 89 [App Term, 1st Dept 2007] ) and that plaintiff did not do so. MVAIC's denial of plaintiff's claim, based upon its untimely submission, also informed plaintiff that it could excuse the delay if plaintiff provided “written justification” for the delay ( see Insurance Department Regulations [11 NYCRR] § 65–3.3[e]; see also Matter of Medical Socy. of State of N.Y. v. Serio, 100 N.Y.2d 854, 862–863 [2003];Nir, 17 Misc.3d 134[A], 2007 N.Y. Slip Op 52124[U] ). In opposition to MVAIC's motion for summary judgment, plaintiff did not establish that it had provided MVAIC with a written justification for its untimely submission of the claim form. As plaintiff's remaining contentions are either improperly raised for the first time on appeal or lack merit, the order is affirmed.