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 $2,000,000 REPLACEMENT INSURANCE POLICY WAS CANCELLED FOR NON-PAYMENT JUST HOURS BEFORE PLAINTIFF WAS STRUCK BY THE INSURED’S CAR, THE FACT THAT A PREMIUM SUFFICIENT FOR THE PRIOR $1,000,000 POLICY HAD BEEN PAID WAS OF NO CONSEQUENCE.
GENERAL CONTRACTOR DID NOT EXERCISE ANY SUPERVISORY CONTROL OVER PLAINTIFF’S WORK AND THEREFORE WAS NOT LIABLE FOR AN INJURY ARISING FROM THE MANNER OF PLAINTIFF’S WORK FOR A SUBCONTRACTOR; LABOR LAW 200 CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF INDICATED SHE DID NOT KNOW THE CAUSE OF HER FALL IN HER DEPOSITION, IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHE RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER THE FLOOR WAS WET FROM TRACKED IN SNOW AND DEFENDANT DID NOT PRESENT ANY EVIDENCE ON THE ISSUE OF NOTICE (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT MOTHER, WHO SUCCESSFULLY OBTAINED AN ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO PAY CHILD SUPPORT, WAS JUDICIALLY ESTOPPED FROM ARGUING PLAINTIFF WAS NOT A PARENT FOR THE PURPOSE OF VISITATION.
THE CONDITIONAL ORDER OF DISMISSAL FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE DID NOT MEET THE CRITERIA OF CPLR 3216; THEREFORE THE MATTER SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMINISTRATIVELY DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).
Motion to Intervene by Members of a De-Certified Class Should Have Been Granted—Class Members Allowed to Sue In Their Individual Capacities
THE 90-DAY DEMAND REQUIRED BY CPLR 3216 WAS NOT PROVIDED BY THE COURT’S ORDER; THE ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN RESTORED TO THE ACTIVE CALENDAR WITHOUT A SHOWING OF MERIT; THE ISSUE, FIRST RAISED ON APPEAL, WAS PROPERLY CONSIDERED BY THE APPELLATE COURT (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE ALLEGED DEFENDANT ATTORNEY NEGLIGENTLY FAILED TO PURSUE DAMAGES IN EXCESS OF THE POLICY LIMITS AGAINST THE TORTFEASOR PERSONALLY; DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE PLAINTIFF WOULD NOT HAVE PREVAILED AGAINST THE TORTFEASOR PERSONALLY; DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (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...