Opinion
51107/2019
07-07-2019
MAPLE MEDICAL LLP, Plaintiff, v. Nina SUNDARAM, M.D. and Medical Liability Mutual Insurance Company, Defendants.
Finger & Finger, Attorney for plaintiff, Attorney for plaintiff, 158 Grand Street, White Plains, NY 10601 Nolan Heller Kauffman, LLP, Attorneys for defendants, 80 State Street, 11th Floor, Albany NY 12207 Rivkan Rakler LLP, Attorney for Defendants, 926 Rxr Plaza Uniondale NY 1156
Finger & Finger, Attorney for plaintiff, Attorney for plaintiff, 158 Grand Street, White Plains, NY 10601
Nolan Heller Kauffman, LLP, Attorneys for defendants, 80 State Street, 11th Floor, Albany NY 12207
Rivkan Rakler LLP, Attorney for Defendants, 926 Rxr Plaza Uniondale NY 1156
Lawrence H. Ecker, J.
The following papers were read on the motion of defendant NINA SUNDARAM, M.D. ("Sundaram") [Mot. Seq. 1], made pursuant to CPLR 3212, for an order granting summary judgment on the counterclaim for a declaratory judgment against plaintiff MAPLE MEDICAL LLP ("plaintiff"), and the cross-motion of plaintiff [Mot. Seq. 2], made pursuant to CPLR 3212, for an order granting summary judgment on the complaint as against Sundaram:
PAPERS
Notice of Motion, Affirmation, Exhibits A-I Affidavit, Exhibits A-E, and Memorandum of Law
Notice of Cross-Motion, Affirmation, Affidavit, Exhibits A-J, L-R, Memorandum of Law in Opposition To Motion and Support of Cross-Motion, and Exhibits E, F, K,
Affidavit in Opposition to Cross-Motion and in Further Support of the Motion, Exhibits J-N, and Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Cross-Motion and in Support of Motion
Memorandum of Law in Reply
Upon the foregoing papers, the court determines as follows:
This lawsuit is one of six separate litigations before this court that involve plaintiff, as the employer partnership, and individual physicians, as plaintiff's employees ("the Six Actions"). The parties in the Six Actions are all represented by the same law firms.
The other actions are Maple Medical, LLP v. Scott, 51103/2019; Maple Medical LLP v. Arevalo , 51106/2019; Maple Medical, LLP v. Goldenberg , 51105/2019; Maple Medical LLP v. Mutic , 51108/2019; Maple Medical, LLP v. Youkeles , 51109/2019.
At the heart of the Six Actions is the same, single legal issue: whether the physician employee or the employer partnership is entitled to a distribution payment made by Medical Liability Mutual Insurance Company ("MLMIC"). MLMIC is the medical malpractice insurance company that issued policies covering the employee physicians that were paid for by plaintiff as their employer. The parties in the actions seek, in essence, a declaratory judgment resolving this one central issue.
At issue in this litigation is the distribution payment of $67,212. that is payable based the policy issued to cover Sundaram.
This court resolves the issue in the companion matter of Maple Medical, LLP v. Scott, 51103/2019 ("the Scott decision") by decision signed this same day. In the Scott decision, this court finds that the recent holding of the Appellate Division, First Department in the Matter of Schaffer, Schonholz & Drossman, LLP v. Title (171 AD3d 465 ) ("the Matter of Schaffer "), decided April 4, 2019, is dispositive of the question raised by the parties in the Six Actions. Of note, Sundaram does not try to distinguish the facts in this case from the facts in the Matter of Schaffer , or from the facts presented in Maple Medical, LLP v. Scott or any other of the Six Actions. Applying the principles set forth in the Matter of Scaffer opinion to the facts presented here, the court finds that, for the reasons set forth in the Scott decision, plaintiff is entitled to the distribution of the sales proceeds of MLMIC.
The court has considered the additional contentions of the parties not specifically addressed herein. To the extent any relief requested by either party was not addressed by the court, it is hereby denied. Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED that the motion of defendant NINA SUNDARAM, M.D. [Mot. Seq. 1], made pursuant to CPLR 3212, for an order granting summary judgment on the counterclaim for a declaratory judgment against plaintiff MAPLE MEDICAL LLP is denied; and it is further
ORDERED that the cross-motion of plaintiff MAPLE MEDICAL LLP [Mot. Seq. 2], made pursuant to CPLR 3212, for an order granting summary judgment on the first cause of action in the complaint for a declaratory judgment as against defendant NINA SUNDARAM, M.D., is granted; and it is further
ORDERED that the second, third and fourth causes of action in the complaint are dismissed as moot; and it is further
ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECLARED that plaintiff MAPLE MEDICAL LLP is entitled to the receipt from the escrow agent currently holding funds due it in the amount of $67,212. plus accrued interest, if any, as to said amount representing the pro rata amount assigned to the account of NINA SUNDARAM, M.D., which said amount shall be paid to plaintiff MAPLE MEDICAL LLP within fifteen (15) days of the service of this Order, with Notice of Entry, upon the Escrow Agent; and it is further
ORDERED that upon compliance with this Order, namely payment of the amounts due plaintiff MAPLE MEDICAL LLP by defendant MEDICAL LIABILITY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, the action shall be dismissed with prejudice.
The foregoing constitutes the Decision/Order/Judgment of the court.