Opinion
2021-50731
07-23-2021
Solution Bridge, Inc., as Assignee of Satchel, Shante, Respondent, v. GEICO Ins. Co., Appellant.
Law Office of Goldstein, Flecker & Hopkins (Alison M. Chulis of counsel), for appellant. The Rybak Firm, PLLC (Damin J. Toell and Karina Barska of counsel), for respondent.
Unpublished Opinion
Law Office of Goldstein, Flecker & Hopkins (Alison M. Chulis of counsel), for appellant.
The Rybak Firm, PLLC (Damin J. Toell and Karina Barska of counsel), for respondent.
PRESENT: DAVID ELLIOT, J.P., WAVNY TOUSSAINT, DONNA-MARIE E. GOLIA, JJ.
Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Sandra E. Roper, J.), dated January 24, 2020. The order, insofar as appealed from and as limited by the brief, denied defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
ORDERED that the order, insofar as appealed from, is reversed, with $30 costs, and defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted.
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 that plaintiff's action is barred by a declaratory judgment entered in the Supreme Court, Nassau County, or, in the alternative, on the ground that plaintiff had failed to appear for duly scheduled examinations under oath (EUOs). Plaintiff cross-moved for summary judgment. By order dated January 24, 2020, the Civil Court denied the motion and cross motion, but found, in effect pursuant to CPLR 3212 (g), that the only issue remaining for trial was defendant's defense that plaintiff had failed to appear for duly scheduled EUOs. Defendant appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of the order as denied its motion for summary judgment.
Defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint should have been granted under the doctrine of res judicata (see EBM Med. Health Care, P.C. v Republic W. Ins., 38 Misc.3d 1 [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2012]) since, under the circumstances, any judgment in favor of plaintiff in the present action would destroy or impair rights or interests established by the order in the declaratory judgment action (see Schuylkill Fuel Corp. v Nieberg Realty Corp., 250 NY 304 [1929]; Healing Art Acupuncture, P.C. v 21st Century Ins. Co., 59 Misc.3d 139 [A], 2018 NY Slip Op 50583[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2018]).
Even absent the declaratory judgment, defendant's motion should have been granted on the alternate ground. Defendant established that the initial and follow-up letters scheduling an EUO had been timely mailed (see St. Vincent's Hosp. of Richmond v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 50 A.D.3d 1123 [2008]), and that plaintiff failed to appear on either date (see Stephen Fogel Psychological, P.C. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 35 A.D.3d 720 [2006]), and plaintiff has not rebutted those elements of defendant's prima facie case. Moreover, the Civil Court held, in effect pursuant to CPLR 3212 (g), that defendant had established the timely mailing of its denial of claim form, which finding has not been challenged by plaintiff.
Accordingly, the order, insofar as appealed from, is reversed, and defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted.
ELLIOT, J.P., TOUSSAINT and GOLIA, JJ., concur.