Denise v. New York City Transit Authority

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Denise v. New York City Transit Authority

25 Misc. 3d 13

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedJuly 22, 2009

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 25 Misc. 3d 13 (Denise v. New York City Transit Authority) 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

Denise v. New York City Transit Authority, 25 Misc. 3d 13 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

Order, dated May 7, 2007, reversed, without costs, motion denied and complaint reinstated.

Defendant New York City Transit Authority concedes that as a self-insurer, it is subject to the provisions of the No-Fault Law to the same extent as an insurer (see Insurance Law § 5103 [a]; Vehicle and Traffic Law § 321 [2]; Public Authorities Law § 1215; Dermatossian v New York City Tr. Auth., 67 NY2d 219 [1986]), and that actions to recover no-fault benefits are generally governed by a six-year statute of limitations (see CPLR 213 [2]; Matter of Travelers Indem. Co. of Conn, v Glenwood Med., P.C., 48 AD3d 319 [2008]). It argues, however, that while an injured claimant has six years to assert a no-fault claim against an insured owner, a claimant must assert an identical claim against a self-insurer within three years, since the liability of a self-insurer for the payment of no-fault benefits is derived strictly from statute. We disagree.

Defendant’s responsibility to provide no-fault coverage is mandatory and the obligation is not decreased merely because defendant is self-insured (see Matter of Allstate Ins. Co. v Shaw, 52 NY2d 818, 820 [1980]). As in the case of an uninsured motorist claim (see Matter of ELRAC, Inc. v Suero, 38 AD3d 544 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 811 [2007]), the right to obtain no-fault coverage, from an injured claimant’s perspective, “is no less than the corresponding right under a policy issued by an insurer” (id. at 545 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see also Spring World Acupuncture, P.C. v New York City Tr. Auth., 24 Misc 3d 39 [2009]). The Suero court held that although a claim for uninsured motorist benefits against a self-insurer is statutorily mandated, such a claim remains contractual in nature and thus, is subject to a six-year statute of limitations. Since we find no basis in law or compelling reasons of policy to distinguish between the right to uninsured motorist benefits and the right to no-fault benefits, we hold that a claim for no-fault benefits against a self-insurer, such as defendant here, is governed by a six-year statute of limitations.

McKeon, PJ., and Heitler, J., concur.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

Order, dated May 7, 2007, reversed, without costs, motion denied and complaint reinstated.

Defendant New York City Transit Authority concedes that as a self-insurer, it is subject to the provisions of the No-Fault Law to the same extent as an insurer (see Insurance Law § 5103 [a]; Vehicle and Traffic Law § 321 [2]; Public Authorities Law § 1215; Dermatossian v New York City Tr. Auth., 67 NY2d 219 [1986]), and that actions to recover no-fault benefits are generally governed by a six-year statute of limitations (see CPLR 213 [2]; Matter of Travelers Indem. Co. of Conn, v Glenwood Med., P.C., 48 AD3d 319 [2008]). It argues, however, that while an injured claimant has six years to assert a no-fault claim against an insured owner, a claimant must assert an identical claim against a self-insurer within three years, since the liability of a self-insurer for the payment of no-fault benefits is derived strictly from statute. We disagree.

Defendant’s responsibility to provide no-fault coverage is mandatory and the obligation is not decreased merely because defendant is self-insured (see Matter of Allstate Ins. Co. v Shaw, 52 NY2d 818, 820 [1980]). As in the case of an uninsured motorist claim (see Matter of ELRAC, Inc. v Suero, 38 AD3d 544 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 811 [2007]), the right to obtain no-fault coverage, from an injured claimant’s perspective, “is no less than the corresponding right under a policy issued by an insurer” (id. at 545 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see also Spring World Acupuncture, P.C. v New York City Tr. Auth., 24 Misc 3d 39 [2009]). The Suero court held that although a claim for uninsured motorist benefits against a self-insurer is statutorily mandated, such a claim remains contractual in nature and thus, is subject to a six-year statute of limitations. Since we find no basis in law or compelling reasons of policy to distinguish between the right to uninsured motorist benefits and the right to no-fault benefits, we hold that a claim for no-fault benefits against a self-insurer, such as defendant here, is governed by a six-year statute of limitations.

McKeon, PJ., and Heitler, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

25 Misc. 3d 13, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/denise-v-new-york-city-transit-authority-nyappterm-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack