Summary
In Quality Health Supply Corp. v. Hertz Co., a declaratory judgment action brought on by Hertz, Vehicles, LLC against Quality Health and its assignor was granted on default.
Summary of this case from Bronx Chiropractic Rehab., P.C. v. Progressive Ins. Co.Opinion
2018-1968 K C
08-28-2020
QUALITY HEALTH SUPPLY CORP., as Assignee of Tassy, Max, Appellant, v. HERTZ CO., Respondent.
The Rybak Firm, PLLC (Damin Toell and Karina Barska of counsel), for appellant. Rubin, Fiorella, Friedman & Mercante, LLP (Deena Khalifa Sarah Cohenson of counsel), for respondent.
The Rybak Firm, PLLC (Damin Toell and Karina Barska of counsel), for appellant.
Rubin, Fiorella, Friedman & Mercante, LLP (Deena Khalifa Sarah Cohenson of counsel), for respondent.
PRESENT: MICHELLE WESTON, J.P., DAVID ELLIOT, BERNICE D. SIEGAL, JJ.
ORDERED that the order is modified by providing that defendant's motion seeking to amend the pleadings and to dismiss the complaint on the ground of res judicata is denied; as so modified, the order is affirmed, without costs.
Plaintiff Quality Health Supply Corp. (Quality Health) commenced this action against "Hertz Co." to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits for services provided to plaintiff's assignor, who had allegedly been injured in an accident on July 7, 2015. Prior to the commencement of this action, "Hertz Vehicles, LLC" had brought a declaratory judgment action in the Supreme Court, New York County, against Quality Health and its assignor herein, among other parties, pertaining to the July 7, 2015 accident, and had moved in the Supreme Court for a default judgment against Quality Health and its assignor. In an order entered August 4, 2016, the Supreme Court, upon granting an unopposed motion by Hertz Vehicles, LLC, declared that Hertz Vehicles, LLC was not obligated to pay claims for reimbursement submitted by Quality Health and its assignor. Hertz Co. thereafter moved in the Civil Court for an order pursuant to CPLR 3025 (c), "amending the named defendant in this action to the proper party, ‘Hertz Vehicles, LLC.’ " Relying upon the Supreme Court's order, Hertz Co. sought the further relief in the Civil Court of dismissing the complaint on the ground that the present action is barred by the doctrine of res judicata. Plaintiff cross-moved for summary judgment and opposed defendant's motion. Plaintiff appeals from an order of the Civil Court entered February 6, 2018 which granted defendant's motion and denied plaintiff's cross motion.
CPLR 3025 (c) provides that "the court may permit pleadings to be amended before or after judgment to conform them to the evidence." Upon a review of the record, we find that the Civil Court improperly exercised its discretion in granting the branch of defendant's motion seeking to amend the pleadings, as defendant failed to proffer any evidence to support the conclusory statement by its claim representative that Hertz Vehicles, LLC is "the proper party." Defendant also sought an order dismissing the complaint on the ground of res judicata. "Under the doctrine of res judicata, a final adjudication of a claim on the merits precludes relitigation of that claim and all claims arising out of the same transaction or series of transactions" ( Ciraldo v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. , 140 A.D.3d 912, 913 [2016] ; see Matter of Hunter , 4 N.Y.3d 260, 269 [2005] ; Schuylkill Fuel Corp. v. Nieberg Realty Corp. , 250 NY 304, 306-307 [1929] ). In the case at bar, as defendant failed to establish that plaintiff had sued the wrong party, there is no demonstration that there had been "a final adjudication of [the present claims] on the merits" ( Ciraldo , 140 A.D.3d at 913 ; Matter of Hunter , 4 N.Y.3d 260 ; Schuylkill Fuel Corp. , 50 NY 304) in the Supreme Court, and, thus, there is no basis for preclusion, under the doctrine of res judicata, of the Civil Court action against Hertz Co. Consequently, Hertz Co.'s motion should have been denied.
With respect to plaintiff's cross motion for summary judgment, contrary to plaintiff's contention, plaintiff failed to demonstrate its prima facie entitlement to summary judgment, as the proof submitted in support of its motion failed to establish either that the claims at issue had not been timely denied or that defendant had issued timely denial of claim forms that were conclusory, vague or without merit as a matter of law (see Insurance Law § 5106 [a] ; Westchester Med. Ctr. v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. , 78 A.D.3d 1168 [2010] ; Ave T MPC Corp. v. Auto One Ins. Co. , 32 Misc. 3d 128[A], 2011 NY Slip Op. 51292[U] [App. Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud. Dists 2011] ).
Accordingly, the order is modified by providing that Hertz Co.'s motion to amend the pleadings and to dismiss the complaint on the ground of res judicata is denied.
WESTON, J.P., ELLIOT and SIEGAL, JJ., concur.