Bay Needle Care Acupuncture, P.C. v. NY City Tr. Auth.

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Bay Needle Care Acupuncture, P.C. v. NY City Tr. Auth.

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedMarch 22, 2019

Docket2019 NYSlipOp 50420(U)

StatusPublished

This text of Bay Needle Care Acupuncture, P.C. v. NY City Tr. Auth. (Bay Needle Care Acupuncture, P.C. v. NY City Tr. Auth.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bay Needle Care Acupuncture, P.C. v. NY City Tr. Auth., (N.Y. Ct. App. 2019).

Pincite

Opinion

Bay Needle Care Acupuncture, P.C., as Assignee of Stephon Greaves, Appellant,

against

NY City Transit Authority, Respondent.

Gary Tsirelman, P.C. (Joseph Padrucco of counsel), for appellant. Jones Jones, LLP (Agnes Neiger of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Katherine A. Levine, J.), entered September 12, 2016. The order granted the branch of defendant's motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground of exhaustion of coverage 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, defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground of exhaustion of coverage, or, in the alternative, pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (5), on the ground that the action is barred by the statute of limitations. Plaintiff cross-moved for summary judgment. By order entered September 12, 2016, the Civil Court granted the branch of defendant's motion seeking summary judgment on the ground of exhaustion of coverage and denied plaintiff's cross motion.

As defendant correctly argues, since the action was not commenced until more than three years after the cause of action had accrued, the action was barred by the three-year statute of limitations set forth in CPLR 214 (2) (see Contact Chiropractic, P.C. v New York City Tr. Auth., 31 NY3d 187 [2018]; S & R Med., P.C. v NYCTA-MABSTOA, 61 Misc 3d 138[A], 2018 NY Slip Op 51582[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2018]). In light of the foregoing, we need not reach the alternative ground raised in defendant's motion.

Accordingly, the order is affirmed.

PESCE, P.J., WESTON and SIEGAL, JJ., concur.

ENTER:
Paul Kenny
Chief Clerk
Decision Date: March 22, 2019

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Bay Needle Care Acupuncture, P.C., as Assignee of Stephon Greaves, Appellant,

against

NY City Transit Authority, Respondent.

Gary Tsirelman, P.C. (Joseph Padrucco of counsel), for appellant. Jones Jones, LLP (Agnes Neiger of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Katherine A. Levine, J.), entered September 12, 2016. The order granted the branch of defendant's motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground of exhaustion of coverage 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, defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground of exhaustion of coverage, or, in the alternative, pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (5), on the ground that the action is barred by the statute of limitations. Plaintiff cross-moved for summary judgment. By order entered September 12, 2016, the Civil Court granted the branch of defendant's motion seeking summary judgment on the ground of exhaustion of coverage and denied plaintiff's cross motion.

As defendant correctly argues, since the action was not commenced until more than three years after the cause of action had accrued, the action was barred by the three-year statute of limitations set forth in CPLR 214 (2) (see Contact Chiropractic, P.C. v New York City Tr. Auth., 31 NY3d 187 [2018]; S & R Med., P.C. v NYCTA-MABSTOA, 61 Misc 3d 138[A], 2018 NY Slip Op 51582[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2018]). In light of the foregoing, we need not reach the alternative ground raised in defendant's motion.

Accordingly, the order is affirmed.

PESCE, P.J., WESTON and SIEGAL, JJ., concur.

ENTER:
Paul Kenny
Chief Clerk
Decision Date: March 22, 2019

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Bay Needle Care Acupuncture, P.C. v. NY City Tr. Auth., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bay-needle-care-acupuncture-pc-v-ny-city-tr-auth-nyappterm-2019.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack