September 15, 2017
Compas Med., P.C. v American Tr. Ins. Co. (2017 NY Slip Op 51190(U))
Headnote
Reported in New York Official Reports at Compas Med., P.C. v American Tr. Ins. Co. (2017 NY Slip Op 51190(U))
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 2d, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
against
American Transit Ins. Co., Respondent.
The Rybak Firm, PLLC (Damin J. Toell, Esq.), for appellant. Law Office of Jason Tenenbaum, P.C. (Jason Tenenbaum, Esq.), for respondent.
Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (William A. Viscovich, J.), entered July 1, 2014. The order, insofar as appealed from, denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and granted the branches of defendant’s cross motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the first through fourth, sixth and seventh causes of action.
ORDERED that the order, insofar as appealed from, is affirmed, with $25 costs.
In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Civil Court as denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, and granted the branches of defendant’s cross motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the first through fourth, sixth and seventh causes of action on the ground, among others, that defendant had not received timely notice of the accident.
Contrary to plaintiff’s argument on appeal, the proof submitted by defendant was sufficient to raise an issue of fact as to whether defendant had ever received the claim underlying the fifth cause of action; thus, the Civil Court correctly denied the branch of plaintiff’s motion seeking summary judgment on this cause of action.
For the reasons stated in Compas Med, P.C. as Assignee of Grandoit, Andre v American Tr. Ins. Co. (___ Misc 3d ___, 2017 NY Slip Op _____ [appeal No. 2014-1826 Q C], decided herewith), the Civil Court correctly granted the branches of defendant’s cross motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the first through fourth, sixth and seventh causes of action.
In view of the foregoing, plaintiff’s remaining arguments are academic.
Accordingly, the order, insofar as appealed from, is affirmed.
PESCE, P.J., ALIOTTA and SOLOMON, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Paul Kenny
Chief Clerk
Decision Date: September 15, 2017