September 2, 2008
Astoria Quality Med. Supply v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (2008 NY Slip Op 51855(U))
https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/astoria-quality-med-supply-v-state-farm-mut-auto-ins-co-2008-ny-slip-op51855u/
- Decided
- September 2, 2008
- Citation
- 2008 NY Slip Op 51855(U) · 20 Misc 3d 144(A)
- Posture
- Other motion
- Outcome
- Insurer prevailed
- Issues
- Discovery and procedure
Posture, outcome, issues and treatment by other decisions are Beynenson Law’s classification. Treatment labels are assigned by a language model reading the citing decision; negative and appeal-history labels are checked by a second reader.
Summary
Editorial summary by Beynenson Law, not part of the court’s decision.
Reported in New York Official Reports at Astoria Quality Med. Supply v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (2008 NY Slip Op 51855(U))
| Astoria Quality Med. Supply v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 51855(U) [20 Misc 3d 144(A)] |
| Decided on September 2, 2008 |
| Appellate Term, Second Department |
| Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. |
| This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports. |
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
APPELLATE TERM: 2nd and 11th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : PESCE, P.J., RIOS and STEINHARDT, JJ
2007-512 K C.
against
State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co., Respondent.
Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Genine D. Edwards, J.), entered January 24, 2007. The order granted defendant’s motion to sever multiple causes of action.
Order affirmed without costs.
Plaintiff commenced this action to recover no-fault benefits as assignee of three individuals. Defendant moved, pursuant to CPLR 603, to sever the causes of action into separate actions, arguing that there are three separate and distinct claims involving different questions of fact and law. The court below granted the motion. This appeal by plaintiff ensued.
The decision to grant severance (see CPLR 603) is an exercise of judicial discretion
which, in the absence of a party’s showing of prejudice to a substantial right should not be
disturbed on appeal (King’s Med.
Supply, Inc. v GEICO Cas. Ins. Co., 14 Misc 3d 136[A], 2007 NY Slip Op 50232[U]
[App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2007]). In the instant matter, the claims arose out of three
separate motor vehicle accidents and three insurance policies were at issue. The particular facts
relating to each claim at issue are likely to raise few, if any, common issues of law or fact (see Radiology Resource Network, P.C. v
Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co., 12 AD3d 185 [2004]; Ladim DME, Inc. v GEICO Gen. Ins. Co., 15 Misc 3d 139[A],
2007 NY Slip Op 50997[U] [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2007]; S.I.A. Med. Supply Inc. v GEICO Ins.
Co., 8 Misc 3d 134[A], 2005 NY Slip Op 51170[U] [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists
2005]; Metro Med. Diagnostics, P.C. v
Motor Veh. Acc. Indem. Corp., 6 Misc 3d 136[A], 2005 NY Slip Op 50238[U] [App
Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2005]). A single trial involving different sets of facts regarding three
underlying accidents and injuries would pose the danger of being unwieldy [*2]and confusing (see King’s Med. Supply, Inc. v GEICO Cas. Ins.
Co., 14
Misc 3d 136[A], 2007 NY Slip Op 50232[U] [2007], supra). Accordingly, the
order granting defendant’s motion to sever the causes of action is affirmed.
Pesce, P.J., Rios and Steinhardt, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: September 02, 2008
Cited in this decision
A label shows how this decision treated the case it cites.
- King’s Med. Supply Inc. v GEICO Cas. Ins. Co. (2007 NY Slip Op 50232(U)) FollowedSeverance of five no-fault claims was upheld because separate accidents and peer reviews presented few common factual or legal issues.
- Radiology Resource Network, P.C. v Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co. (2004 NY Slip Op 07960)The provider's 68 assigned claims were properly severed because individual issues predominated and a joint trial risked confusion.
- Ladim DME, Inc. v GEICO Gen. Ins. Co. (2007 NY Slip Op 50997(U))The insurer's answer supplied a basis to sever five assignors' claims arising from separate accidents without a prejudice affidavit.
- S.I.A. Med. Supply Inc. v GEICO Ins. Co. (2005 NYSlipOp 51170(U))The provider's claims for 11 assignors were severed because they presented few common issues and a joint trial risked confusion.
- Metro Med. Diagnostics, P.C. v Motor Veh. Acc. Indem. Corp. (2005 NY Slip Op 50238(U))MVAIC's motion to sever claims arising from three separate accidents was granted because few common issues were likely.
Similar decisions
- Georgetown Mind-Body Med., P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (2009 NY Slip Op 52464(U))Severance of no-fault claims may rest solely on allegations in the answer without a showing of prejudice.
- Ocean Diagnostics Imaging P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (2006 NY Slip Op 50913(U))The provider's claims from 11 separate accidents were properly severed because the defenses raised few common issues of law or fact.
- Astoria Quality Med. Supply v MVAIC (2007 NY Slip Op 52275(U))The provider lacked prima facie proof on one claim, while MVAIC failed to prove noncompliance with notice requirements on another.
- Rite Aid Med. Supply Corp. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. (2021 NY Slip Op 51161(U))The insurer was entitled to severance because the two assignors' claims arose from separate accidents and involved different defenses.
- Poole v Allstate Ins. Co. (2005 NY Slip Op 06017)A provider's 47 no-fault causes of action were severed because their differing facts and defenses would make a joint trial unwieldy.