Home/Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York/M.N. Dental Diagnostics, P.C. v. New York City Transit Authority

M.N. Dental Diagnostics, P.C. v. New York City Transit Authority

82 A.D.3d 409, 917 N.Y.2d 856
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided March 1, 2011·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

[410]*410It is well settled that “the No-Fault Law does not codify common-law principles; it creates new and independent statutory rights and obligations in order to provide a more efficient means for adjusting financial responsibilities arising out of automobile accidents” (Aetna Life & Cas. Co. v Nelson, 67 NY2d 169, 175 [1986]). Since it is undisputed that there existed no contract between plaintiff’s assignor and the New York City Transit Authority, the common carrier’s obligation to provide no-fault benefits arises out of the no-fault statute. Therefore, the three-year statute of limitations as set forth in CPLR 214 (2) is applicable here. Concur — Gonzalez, P.J., Tom, Andrias, Renwick and Abdus-Salaam, JJ.

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

M.N. Dental Diagnostics, P.C. v. New York City Transit Authority, 82 A.D.3d 409, 917 N.Y.2d 856 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

82 A.D.3d 409 (M.N. Dental Diagnostics, P.C. v. New York City Transit Authority) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

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)
Denise v. New York City Transit Authority
96 A.D.3d 561 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)