Opinion
No. 2013–720 Q C.
2014-08-20
GREAT HEALTH CARE CHIROPRACTIC, P.C. as Assignee of Kareem Lindsay, Appellant, v. AMERICAN TRANSIT INS. CO., Respondent.
Present: PESCE, P.J., ALIOTTA and SOLOMON, JJ.
Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Barry A. Schwartz, J.), entered February 28, 2013. The order denied plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and, upon a search of the record, granted defendant summary judgment dismissing the complaint with prejudice.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with $25 costs.
Great Health Care Chiropractic, P.C. (Great Health) commenced this action on February 14, 2012 to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits for services provided to its assignor as a result of injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident on December 10, 2010. After issue had been joined, plaintiff moved for summary judgment, and defendant opposed the motion on the ground that plaintiff had failed to establish its prima facie case. While this no-fault action was pending, defendant, American Transit Insurance Company (American Transit), commenced a declaratory judgment action in Supreme Court, New York County, against Great Health and its assignor, among others, alleging that the assignor had breached the terms of the insurance policy by failing to appear for duly scheduled examinations under oath (EUOs) and that, as a result, American Transit is not obligated to pay any claims for first-party no-fault benefits submitted by Great Health as assignee of Kareem Lindsay arising out of the December 10, 2010 accident. Great Health asserted in its answer in Supreme Court that American Transit did not demonstrate good cause for requesting an EUO. The Supreme Court initially denied a motion by American Transit for, among other things, summary judgment but, upon reargument, granted the motion, finding that American Transit had demonstrated that it had timely mailed EUO scheduling letters to Great Health's assignor; that the assignor had failed to appear for scheduled EUOs; and that Great Health had failed to raise a triable issue of fact in opposition to the motion. The Supreme Court awarded American Transit a declaratory judgment, dated January 25, 2013.
After being awarded the declaratory judgment, American Transit submitted, in this action, a supplemental affirmation by its counsel, in opposition to plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, in which he argued that plaintiff's action is barred by res judicata. By order entered February 28, 2013, the Civil Court denied plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and, upon a search of the record, granted defendant summary judgment dismissing the complaint with prejudice. This appeal by plaintiff ensued.
Plaintiff's moving papers failed to establish either that defendant had failed to pay or deny the claims within the requisite 30–day period ( see Viviane Etienne Med. Care, P.C. v. Country–Wide Ins. Co., 114 AD3d 33 [2013] ), or that defendant had issued a timely denial of claim that was conclusory, vague or without merit as a matter of law ( see Insurance Law § 5106[a]; Westchester Med. Ctr. v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 78 AD3d 1168 [2010] ). Consequently, plaintiff failed to establish its prima facie entitlement to summary judgment.
Moreover, the Civil Court properly determined that the action is barred under the doctrine of res judicata ( see EBM Med. Health Care, P.C. v. Republic W. Ins., 38 Misc.3d 1 [App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2012]; Ava Acupuncture, P.C. v. N.Y. Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 34 Misc.3d 149[A], 2012 N.Y. Slip Op 50233[U] [App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2012]; SZ Med., P.C. v. Erie Ins. Co., 24 Misc.3d 126[A], 2009 N.Y. Slip Op 51221[U] [App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2009] ), as any judgment in favor of plaintiff in this action would destroy or impair rights or interests established by the Supreme Court declaratory judgment ( see Schuylkill Fuel Corp. v. Nieberg Realty Corp., 250 N.Y. 304, 306–307 [1929]; SZ Med., P.C. v. Erie Ins. Co., 24 Misc.3d 126[A], 2009 N.Y. Slip Op 51221[U] ). Defendant's failure to serve the Supreme Court's order upon plaintiff with notice of entry is not fatal, in view of the binding and conclusive effect of the order ( see All Boro Psychological Servs., P.C. v. Travelers Prop. Cas. Co., 44 Misc.3d 48, 2014 N.Y. Slip Op 24161 [App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2014] ). While plaintiff argues that the Civil Court improvidently exercised its discretion in considering defendant's untimely supplemental affirmation in opposition to plaintiff's summary judgment motion, we reject this contention in view of the justification shown for the delay and plaintiff's failure to demonstrate any prejudice arising therefrom ( see Lawrence v. Celtic Holdings, LLC, 85 AD3d 874 [2011]; cf. Mosheyeva v. Distefano, 288 A.D.2d 448 [2001]; Risucci v. Zeal Mgt. Corp., 258 A.D.2d 512 [1999] ). In view of the foregoing, we decline to disturb so much of the order as, upon a search of the record, granted defendant summary judgment dismissing the complaint with prejudice.
Accordingly, the order is affirmed.