You are here: / / Only (No-Fault) “N-F 5” Form Triggers 30-Day Period to Deny or Pay a C...

Only (No-Fault) “N-F 5” Form Triggers 30-Day Period to Deny or Pay a Claim

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Austin, determined that the UB-04 (no-fault form) was not the functional equivalent of the N-F 5 (no-fault form).  Therefore, receipt by the no-fault carrier of the UB-04 form from the heath care provider did not trigger the 30-day period in which a no-fault insurer is required to pay or deny a claim.  Sound Shore Med Ctr v Ne York Cent Mut Fire Ins Co, 2013 NY Slip Op 02390, 2011-04975, Index No 7148/09, 2nd Dept, 4-10-13

 

You might also like
THE COUNTY HAD TIMELY KNOWLEDGE OF THE NATURE OF PETITIONER’S EXCESSIVE-FORCE CLAIM AGAINST THE POLICE AND DID NOT DEMONSTRATE PREJUDICE FROM THE DELAY IN FILING A NOTICE OF CLAIM; THAT PETITIONER DID NOT HAVE AN ADEQUATE EXCUSE WAS NOT DETERMINATIVE; THE APPLICATION TO SERVE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
SUPREME COURT WAS WITHOUT POWER TO DIRECT DISMISSAL OF THE FORECLOSURE ACTION FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE BECAUSE A 90-DAY NOTICE HAD NOT BEEN SERVED (SECOND DEPT).
A DISMISSAL BASED UPON PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO APPEAR TO OPPOSE A MOTION TO DISMISS IS NOT A DETERMINATION ON THE MERITS AND THEREFORE HAS NO RES JUDICATA EFFECT (SECOND DEPT).
UNINSURED MOTORIST CARRIER (GEICO) WAS ENTITLED TO A FRAMED ISSUE HEARING TO RESOLVE CONFLICTING EVIDENCE WHETHER THE VEHICLE INVOLVED IN THE HIT AND RUN WAS INSURED (SECOND DEPT).
CITY’S POTENTIAL LIABILITY FOR THE ACTIONS OF A CITY BUS DRIVER WAS BASED ON RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR, THEREFORE A NEGLIGENT HIRING AND RETENTION ACTION WAS NOT VIABLE AND THE DRIVER’S PERSONNEL FILE WAS NOT DISCOVERABLE (SECOND DEPT).
THE FACT THAT THE DEFENDANT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION FILED FOR BANKRUPTCY DID NOT RELIEVE THE PLAINTIFF OF THE OBLIGATION TO COMPLY WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF REAL PROPERTY ACTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS LAW (RPAPL) 1304; PLAINTIFF’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
Rejection of Answer Based Upon a Defective Verification Was Ineffective Because the Rejection Was Not Accompanied by an Adequate Description of the Defect—Supreme Court Properly Ignored Defect Because there Was No Prejudice to Plaintiffs
THE TWO COUNTS OF ROBBERY THIRD WERE CONCURRENT INCLUSORY COUNTS OF THE TWO COUNTS OF ROBBERY SECOND; CONVICTIONS ON THE ROBBERY SECOND COUNTS REQUIRED VACATION OF THE CONVICTIONS ON THE ROBBERY THIRD COUNTS AND THE RELATED SENTENCES (SECOND DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

General Contractor’s Liability for Ice and Snow at Work Site/Criteria for... New Factual Claim Made for the First Time at Trial by Defendant Triggered “Inconsistent...