Key Takeaway
Court grants renewal motion after law office failure, defendant wins summary judgment in no-fault insurance case when plaintiff fails to raise triable issues of fact.
Ashraf Ashour Physical Therapy, P.C. v Interboro Mut. Indem. Ins. Co., 2012 NY Slip Op 50491(U)(App. Term 1st Dept. 2012)
Defendant appeals from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County (Margaret A. Chan, J.), dated October 12, 2011, which denied its motion to renew its prior motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
Per Curiam.
Order (Margaret A. Chan, J.), dated October 12, 2011, reversed, without costs, renewal granted, and upon renewal, defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint granted. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.
Defendant’s motion to renew should have been granted, where defendant offered a reasonable excuse (viz., law office failure) for its inadvertent submission of motion papers relating to a companion case, provided the correct moving papers, and demonstrated the merit of its defenses (see Joseph v Bd. of Educ. of City of New York, 91 AD3d 528 ; Scannell v Mt. Sinai Med. Ctr., 256 AD2d 214 ). On renewal, defendant demonstrated entitlement to summary judgment dismissing plaintiff’s complaint seeking recovery of first-party no-fault benefits. In opposition, plaintiff failed to raise an issue of fact requiring a trial of any of plaintiff’s no-fault claims. In this connection, plaintiff did not refute defendant’s showing that the claim for $177.37 was paid in full, rebut the independent medical examination (IME) report submitted by defendant with respect to the claim for $160.74, or seriously challenge defendant’s compliance with the workers’ compensation fee schedules applicable to the remaining claims.
This was my case.
Related Articles
- Issues involving the granting of leave to renew when an improper affirmation instead of an affidavit is presented
- Renewal Under Certain Circumstances May Be Granted to Correct an Improper Affirmation: A Comprehensive Guide to CPLR 2106 Requirements
- Motion to Reargue: Understanding the 30-Day Rule in New York Civil Procedure
- 2221(a) motion appropriate to deal with motion to vacate sua sponte order
- New York No-Fault Insurance Law
Legal Update (February 2026): The fee schedules and reimbursement rates referenced in this 2012 decision have likely been subject to multiple regulatory updates and amendments since publication. Practitioners should verify current fee schedule provisions, reimbursement calculation methods, and procedural requirements for no-fault benefit claims, as significant changes to New York’s no-fault insurance regulations may have occurred over the intervening years.
