Contact Chiropractic, P.C. v. New York City Transit Authority

135 A.D.3d 804, 22 N.Y.S.3d 891
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJanuary 20, 2016
Docket2014-05446
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 135 A.D.3d 804 (Contact Chiropractic, P.C. v. New York City Transit Authority) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Contact Chiropractic, P.C. v. New York City Transit Authority, 135 A.D.3d 804, 22 N.Y.S.3d 891 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Opinion

In an action to recover no-fault benefits under a policy of automobile insurance, the defendant appeals, by permission, from an order of the Appellate Term of the Supreme Court for the Second, Eleventh, and Thirteenth Judicial Districts dated December 3, 2013, which affirmed so much of an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Latin, J.), dated July 27, 2011, as, upon renewal, adhered to the original determination in an order of the same court (Lebedeff, J.), dated December 4, 2007, denying that branch of its motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as time-barred.

*805 Ordered that the order dated December 3, 2013, is affirmed, with costs.

The Appellate Term correctly determined that an action by an injured claimant, or his or her assignee, to recover first-party no-fault benefits from a defendant who is self-insured, is subject to a six-year statute of limitations, since the claim is essentially contractual, as opposed to statutory, in nature (see Matter of New York City Tr. Auth. v Powell, 126 AD3d 705 [2015]; Matter of New York City Tr. Auth. v Hill, 107 AD3d 897 [2013]; Matter of ELRAC Inc., v Suero, 38 AD3d 544 [2007]; Mandarino v Travelers Prop. Cas. Ins. Co., 37 AD3d 775 [2007]).

Accordingly, it was properly determined that the statute of limitations had not expired when this action was commenced. Dillon, J.P., Dickerson, Miller and Duffy, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Contact Chiropractic, P.C. v. New York City Tr. Auth.
31 N.Y.3d 187 (New York Court of Appeals, 2018)
Contact Chiropractic, P.C. v. N.Y.C. Transit Auth.
99 N.E.3d 867 (Court for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors, 2018)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
135 A.D.3d 804, 22 N.Y.S.3d 891, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/contact-chiropractic-pc-v-new-york-city-transit-authority-nyappdiv-2016.