21st Century Advantage Ins. Co. v. Cabral

3 Citing cases

  1. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Parisien

    352 F. Supp. 3d 215 (E.D.N.Y. 2018)   Cited 38 times
    Holding that, in light of plaintiffs' allegations and exhibits, it could not be said that plaintiffs' request for relief "rest[ed] on mere hypotheticals" (quoting Hancock v. Essential Res., Inc., 792 F. Supp. 924, 928 (S.D.N.Y. 1992))

    New York courts routinely stay collection actions pending declaratory judgment proceedings such as this one. SeeAmeriprise Ins. Co. v. Hampton , 60 Misc.3d 1222(A), 2018 WL 3963521 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York County Aug. 14, 2018) ; 21st Century Advantage Ins. Co. v. Cabral, 35 Misc.3d 1240(A), 2012 WL 2161466 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Nassau County 2012) ; Autoone Ins. Co. v. Manhattan Heights Medical, P.C. , 24 Misc.3d 1229(A), 2009 WL 2357009 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Queens County 2009) ; St. Paul Travelers Ins. Co. v. Nandi , 15 Misc.3d 1145(A), 2007 WL 1662050 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Queens County 2007). Failure to issue an injunction in this case may frustrate the balance that New York has attempted to strike between efficient claims processing and rooting out fraud.

  2. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Raia Med. Health, P.C.

    140 A.D.3d 1029 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016)   Cited 12 times
    Affirming a motion to stay pending and future no-fault arbitration proceedings where there was a "multiplicity of actions and arbitrations and the risk of inconsistent results

    Thus, the plaintiffs' submissions demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits. Further, under the circumstances of this case, the plaintiffs demonstrated the likelihood of irreparable injury absent the granting of the preliminary injunction, based on the multiplicity of actions and arbitrations, and the risk of inconsistent results (see Ansonia Assoc. v. Ansonia Residents' Assn., 78 A.D.2d 211, 219, 434 N.Y.S.2d 370 ; 21st Century Advantage Ins. Co. v. Cabral, 35 Misc.3d 1240[A], 2012 WL 2161466 St. Paul Travelers Ins. Co. v. Nandi, 15 Misc.3d 1145[A], 2007 N.Y. Slip Op. 51154[U], 2007 WL 1662050 [Sup.Ct., Queens County] ; Allstate Ins. Co. v. Elzanaty, 929 F.Supp.2d 199, 221–222 ; cf. Matter of Countrywide Ins. Co. v. DHD Med., P.C., 86 A.D.3d 431, 431, 926 N.Y.S.2d 293 ). The plaintiffs submitted evidence of well over 100 pending actions and open arbitrations commenced against them by RMH.

  3. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. R.L.

    2023 N.Y. Slip Op. 50497 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2023)

    As a threshold matter, while the plaintiff's motion seeks a stay pursuant to CPLR 2201 and a preliminary injunction pursuant to CPLR 6301, the opposing Provider Defendants have established that, because the plaintiff is not seeking a stay of the instant action, and CPLR 2201 only empowers the Court to grant a stay of the proceedings in an action pending in this Court, the plaintiff's motion must be treated as one for a preliminary injunction pursuant to CPLR 6301, rather than a stay pursuant to CPLR 2201. (See, e.g., 21st Century Advantage Ins. Co. v Cabral, 35 Misc.3d 1240 (A) [Sup Ct Nassau County 2012], St. Paul Travelers Ins. Co. v Nandi, 15 Misc.3d 1145 (A) [Sup Ct Queens County 2007]).