45-day rule involving MVAIC and CPLR 3212(f)

AAA Chiropractic, P.C. v MVAIC, 2010 NY Slip Op 51896(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2010)

“The Civil Court granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment, finding that plaintiff had failed to show a reasonable justification for the late submission of its claim forms, and denied plaintiff’s cross motion. The instant appeal by plaintiff ensued.”

“It is undisputed that plaintiff was required to submit its claim forms to MVAIC within 45 days after the services at issue were rendered and that plaintiff did not do so….  MVAIC’s denial of plaintiff’s claims, based upon their untimely submission, also informed plaintiff that MVAIC could excuse the delay if plaintiff provided “written justification” for the delay….  In opposition to MVAIC’s motion for summary judgment, plaintiff did not establish that it had provided MVAIC with a written justification for its untimely submission of the claim forms. Consequently, defendant established its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law….”

“While plaintiff contends that the Civil Court erred in granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment and denying its cross motion to compel defendant to respond to plaintiff’s discovery demands, plaintiff’s bald conclusory assertion that defendant should be compelled to respond to plaintiff’s discovery demands because it could not adequately oppose defendant’s motion for summary judgment without said discovery responses (see CPLR 3212 ) was insufficient to demonstrate that discovery was needed in order to show the existence of a triable issue of fact”

MVAIC obtained summary dismissal based upon violation of the 45-day submission rule.  The Appellate Term denied the portion of the opposition seeking to deny the motion based upon outstanding discovery.  CPLR 3212(f).  Would the Appellate Term, First Department held the same way?

See, Socrates Med. Health, P.C. v MVAIC , 2010 NY Slip Op 51780(U)(App. Term 1st Dept. 2010)(“Civil Court properly denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment, since material outstanding disclosure remains extant. Summary judgment may be renewed upon the completion of disclosure.”)

Related Articles

• Understanding CPLR 3212(a): Critical Timing Rules for Summary Judgment Motions in New York
• The CPLR 3212(g) paradigm
• Reasonable excuse satisfied despite claim of lack of personal jurisdiction
• No-Fault Verification Requirements: When Partial Compliance Isn’t Enough
• New York No-Fault Insurance Law

Legal Update (February 2026): Since this 2010 decision, MVAIC claim submission procedures and the 45-day rule requirements may have been modified through regulatory amendments or updated MVAIC guidelines. Additionally, CPLR 3212(f) discovery provisions and summary judgment procedures have been subject to various amendments over the intervening years. Practitioners should verify current MVAIC submission deadlines and justification requirements, as well as current CPLR 3212(f) standards for discovery-related summary judgment deferrals.