Key Takeaway
Appellate Term follows Second Department precedent over First Department ruling in no-fault insurance statute of limitations dispute involving self-insured entities.
Understanding Conflicting Precedents in No-fault Insurance Litigation
New York’s no-fault insurance system creates unique challenges when it comes to statute of limitations issues, particularly for self-insured entities like the New York City Transit Authority. When different appellate departments reach opposing conclusions on the same legal issue, practitioners must navigate carefully to determine which precedent applies in their jurisdiction.
The case of Contact Chiropractic, P.C. v New York City Transit Authority illustrates this complexity perfectly. At the heart of the dispute was whether a three-year or six-year statute of limitations applied to no-fault claims against self-insured entities — a question that had divided New York’s appellate courts.
Jason Tenenbaum’s Analysis:
Contact Chiropractic, P.C. v New York City Tr. Auth., 2013 NY Slip Op 23410 (App. Term 2d Dept. 2013)http://nofault.lisquared.com/wp-admin/post-new.php
“Defendant contended therein that, since it does not maintain an insurance [*2]policy, its obligation to provide no-fault benefits is statutorily imposed (Insurance Law § 5103; see Insurance Department Regulations § 65-2.1) and governed by CPLR 214 (2), which imposes a three-year statute of limitations. In opposition to the motion, plaintiff asserted that a six-year statute of limitations, as set forth in CPLR 213 (2), applied, citing Matter of ELRAC Inc. v Suero (38 AD3d 544 ). Defendant replied that the recent First Department holding in M.N. Dental Diagnostics, P.C. v New York City Tr. Auth. (82 AD3d 409 ) required the imposition of a three-year statute of limitations (see also Richard Denise M.D. P.C. v New York City Tr. Auth., 96 AD3d 561 ).”
So it appears that the Appellate Term followed the Second Department precedent as opposed to more recent First Department precedent. This would be proper. Mountainview Coach Lines v Storms, 102 AD2d 663, 664-665 (2d Dept 1984)
Key Takeaway
The Appellate Term properly adhered to Second Department precedent rather than following the First Department’s more recent ruling. This decision underscores the importance of understanding jurisdictional precedent in no-fault litigation. For practitioners facing time-sensitive filing issues, knowing which statute of limitations applies can make the difference between a viable claim and a dismissed case.
Legal Update (February 2026): Since this 2013 decision analyzing conflicting precedents on statute of limitations for self-insured entities, New York’s appellate courts may have issued additional rulings that could clarify or modify the three-year versus six-year limitations period debate. Insurance Department regulations under § 65-2.1 and related procedural requirements may also have been amended. Practitioners handling no-fault claims against self-insured entities should verify current appellate precedent and regulatory provisions to ensure compliance with the most recent statutory interpretation.
