BAY NEEDLE CARE ACUPUNCTURE v. NY CITY TRANSIT AUTHORITY (2019)

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with $25 costs.

In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground of exhaustion of coverage, or, in the alternative, pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (5), on the ground that the action is barred by the statute of limitations. Plaintiff cross-moved for summary judgment. By order entered September 12, 2016, the Civil Court granted the branch of defendant's motion seeking summary judgment on the ground of exhaustion of coverage and denied plaintiff's cross motion.

As defendant correctly argues, since the action was not commenced until more than three years after the cause of action had accrued, the action was barred by the three-year statute of limitations set forth in CPLR 214 (2) (see Contact Chiropractic, P.C. v New York City Tr. Auth., 31 NY3d 187 [2018]; S & R Med., P.C. v NYCTA-MABSTOA, 61 Misc 3d 138[A], 2018 NY Slip Op. 51582[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2018] ). In light of the foregoing, we need not reach the alternative ground raised in defendant's motion.

Accordingly, the order is affirmed.

PESCE, P.J., WESTON and SIEGAL, JJ., concur.