January 20, 2005

Midwood Acupuncture, P.C. v State Farm Ins. Co. (2005 NY Slip Op 50055(U))

Headnote

The court considered the motion made by defendant State Farm Insurance Company to sever the action brought by plaintiff Midwood Acupuncture, P.C. into separate actions on behalf of individual assignors. In this action, the plaintiff sought to recover first party No-Fault benefits with interest and statutory attorney's fees from the defendant for alleged medical services provided to its assignors. The main issue decided was whether the claims should be severed into separate actions, and the court held that severance was not necessary. The court found that even if the claims involved separate accidents and individuals, they did not lose their character as a series of transactions because they occurred at different places and times, and if they involved a common question of law, joinder was proper. Therefore, the court denied the defendant's motion to sever the action.

Reported in New York Official Reports at Midwood Acupuncture, P.C. v State Farm Ins. Co. (2005 NY Slip Op 50055(U))

Midwood Acupuncture, P.C. v State Farm Ins. Co. (2005 NY Slip Op 50055(U)) [*1]

Midwood Acupuncture, P.C. v State Farm Ins. Co.

2005 NY Slip Op 50055(U)

Decided on January 20, 2005

Civil Court, Kings County

Spodek, J.

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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on January 20, 2005

Civil Court, Kings County

Midwood Acupuncture, P.C., as Assignee of Taha Ibrahim, Lision Murry, Martin Lewis and Altaf Teeluck, Plaintiff,
against
State Farm Insurance Company, Defendant.

070407/04

Ellen M. Spodek, J.

defendant State Farm Insurance Company moves for an order severing the action brought by plaintiff into separate actions on behalf of the individual assignors.

In this action, plaintiff seeks to recover first party No-Fault benefits with interest and statutory attorneys fees from defendant for alleged medical services provided to its assignors.

Defendant’s motion to sever is hereby denied. The Appellate Division has held that when “claims arise out of a uniform contract of insurance and involves interpretation of the same no-fault provisions of the Insurance Law” severance need not be granted. The Court found that even if the claims involved separate accidents and individuals they do not lose their character as a series of transactions because they occur at different places and times and if they involve a common question of law, as the case at bar does, joinder is proper. ( see Hempstead General Hosp. v Liberty Mut. Ins., 134 AD2d 569 [2d Dept. 1987]). Defendant failed to submit any [*2]documents to demonstrate that the causes of action do not share common questions of law.

Moreover, the instant case involves one plaintiff and one defendant and CPLR 601 permits, and even encourages, joinder with as many claims as one plaintiff might have against one defendant, regardless of whether such claims are related.

Here, this Court finds that joinder of only four assignees does not impose an undue burden on defendant nor would it create confusion for the fact-finder. (see Hempstead, supra )

Lastly, the granting or denial of severance is left to the discretion of the Court. (Sporn v Hudson Transit Lines, 265 App.Div. 360; St. James Realty Corp. Level Realty Corp., 155 N.YS.2d 44; Biltmore Knitwear Corporation v Chalfin, 25 NYS2d 947). Accordingly, defendant’s motion is denied.The foregoing constitutes the decision and order of this court.

E N T E R,

Dated: January 20, 2005 __________________

Hon. Ellen M. Spodek

Judge, Civil Court