[*1]

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Department, 2d, 11th and 13th Judicial Districts, October 16, 2012

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

Methfessel & Werbel, New York City (Frank J. Kennan of counsel), for appellant. Law Offices of Damin J. Toell, P.C., Brooklyn (Damin J. Toell of counsel), for respondent.

{**37 Misc 3d at 68} OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs.

In this action to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits for dental services provided to plaintiff’s assignor as a result of injuries sustained in an automobile accident, the record indicates that, subsequent to the assignment of benefits from plaintiff’s assignor to plaintiff and the provision of dental services by plaintiff to its assignor, defendant Preferred Mutual Insurance Company commenced a declaratory judgment action in Supreme Court, New York County, against plaintiff’s assignor based upon his alleged misrepresentation of his residence when applying for insurance. By order dated October 25, 2004, the Supreme Court granted Preferred’s motion for summary judgment in the declaratory judgment action, and declared that Preferred was “not obligated to provide no-fault benefits or defend any claims for bodily injury or property damage on [its] policy issued to [Oba Connor, plaintiff’s assignor].” Several years later, plaintiff commenced the instant no-fault action, and Preferred moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, contending that this action was barred by virtue of the Supreme Court’s order. The Civil Court denied defendant’s motion.

Plaintiff herein was neither named nor served in the declaratory judgment action nor, at the time, was it in privity with its assignor, who was a named party in that action, as the assignment of benefits had been executed before the declaratory judgment action had been commenced, and plaintiff otherwise had no full and fair opportunity to appear and defend its interests in that proceeding. Consequently, the instant action is not subject to dismissal by virtue of the order in the declaratory judgment action (see Gramatan Home Invs. Corp. v Lopez, 46 NY2d 481 [1979]; Magic Recovery Med. & Surgical Supply Inc. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 27 Misc 3d 67 [App Term, 2d Dept,{**37 Misc 3d at 69} 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2010]). As a result, Preferred’s [*2]motion for summary judgment was properly denied.

Accordingly, the order of the Civil Court is affirmed.

Weston, J.P., Rios and Solomon, JJ., concur.

[*1]

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Department, 2d, 11th and 13th Judicial Districts, October 16, 2012

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

Rubin, Fiorella & Friedman LLP, New York City (Jason W. Moussourakis and Joseph R. Federici of counsel), for appellant. Law Offices of Bruce Newborough, P.C., Brooklyn (Damin J. Toell of counsel), for respondent.

{**38 Misc 3d at 2} OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

Ordered that the order is reversed, with $10 costs, and defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted.

EBM Medical Health Care, P.C. commenced this action to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits for medical services provided to its assignor as a result of injuries sustained in an automobile accident. While this no-fault action was pending, Republic Western Insurance commenced a declaratory judgment action in Supreme Court, New York County, against EBM, alleging that EBM was not properly licensed under Business{**38 Misc 3d at 3} Corporation Law §§ 1507 and 1508 and Education Law § 6507 (4) (c), and therefore was not eligible to recover no-fault benefits. A judgment was entered, on default, in the declaratory judgment action, declaring “that EBM Medical Health Care, P.C. is not properly licensed under Business Corporation Law 1507 and 1508 and Education Law 6507 (4) (c)” and that Republic had no duty to pay no-fault benefits to EBM “arising out of any current or future proceeding.” After the judgment in the declaratory judgment action had been entered, Republic moved in this no-fault action for summary judgment dismissing EBM’s complaint, contending that this action was barred by virtue of the declaratory judgment. The Civil Court denied Republic’s motion, finding, among other things, that Republic had not established that the term “current” proceeding, as used in the declaratory judgment, applied to the instant action.

Based upon the declaratory judgment, the instant action is barred under the doctrine of res judicata (see Ava Acupuncture, P.C. v NY Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 34 Misc 3d 149[A], 2012 NY Slip Op 50233[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2012]; SZ Med., P.C. v Erie Ins. Co., 24 Misc 3d 126[A], 2009 NY Slip Op 51221[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2009]). To hold otherwise could result in a judgment in the instant action which would destroy or impair rights established by the judgment of the Supreme Court in the declaratory judgment action (see Schuylkill Fuel Corp. v Nieberg Realty Corp., 250 NY 304, 306-307 [1929]). [*2]Contrary to EBM’s contention, the declaratory judgment is a conclusive final determination, notwithstanding that it was entered on default, since res judicata applies to a judgment taken by default which has not been vacated (see Lazides v P & G Enters., 58 AD3d 607 [2009]; Matter of Allstate Ins. Co. v Williams, 29 AD3d 688 [2006]; Matter of Eagle Ins. Co. v Facey, 272 AD2d 399 [2000]). The instant no-fault action was pending at the time the declaratory judgment was entered, and therefore, pursuant to the unambiguous language used in the judgment, this action falls within the ambit of the declaratory judgment as a “current” proceeding. Accordingly, the order of the Civil Court is reversed and Republic’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted.

Weston, J.P., Rios and Solomon, JJ., concur.

[*1]

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Department, 2d, 11th and 13th Judicial Districts, September 19, 2012

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

Bruno, Gerbino & Soriano, LLP, Melville (Charles W. Benton of counsel), for appellant.

{**37 Misc 3d at 91} OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

Ordered that the order is modified by providing that the branches of plaintiff’s motion seeking summary judgment on the third through ninth causes of action are denied; as so modified, the order is affirmed, without costs.{**37 Misc 3d at 92}

In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, plaintiff moved for summary judgment and defendant cross-moved to compel plaintiff to produce Gracia Mayard, M.D., and Richard Berardi, D.O., for depositions regarding “treatment” and plaintiff’s “billing practices.” In opposition to plaintiff’s motion, defendant proffered the defense that Drs. Mayard and Berardi had failed to appear for examinations under oath (EUOs). The Civil Court granted plaintiff’s motion and denied defendant’s cross motion, finding, among other things, that defendant had failed to raise a triable issue of fact in opposition to plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment because it had violated Insurance Department Regulations (11 NYCRR) § 65-3.5 (e) by [*2]scheduling the EUOs outside the county in which plaintiff is located, and that defendant had “failed to establish a wilful noncompliance with the EUO request.”

Since defendant raises no issue on appeal with regard to plaintiff’s establishment of a prima facie case, we do not pass upon the propriety of the Civil Court’s determination with respect thereto. Furthermore, we find that the defenses upon which defendant bases its request for the depositions of Dr. Mayard and Dr. Berardi, regarding “treatment” and plaintiff’s “billing practices,” are precluded (see Fair Price Med. Supply Corp. v Travelers Indem. Co., 10 NY3d 556 [2008]; Delta Diagnostic Radiology, P.C. v Republic W. Ins. Co., 15 Misc 3d 33 [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2007]). Accordingly, defendant is not entitled to the denial of plaintiff’s motion pursuant to CPLR 3212 (f) or to have its cross motion to compel the depositions granted (see ARCO Med. N.Y., P.C. v Lancer Ins. Co., 34 Misc 3d 134[A], 2011 NY Slip Op 52382[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2011]; A.B. Med. Servs. PLLC v Utica Mut. Ins. Co., 11 Misc 3d 71, 73 [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2006]).

Turning to plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, we find that the branches of the motion seeking summary judgment on the first two causes of action were properly granted. Defendant admits that it received plaintiff’s claims comprising those causes of action on December 26, 2006 and December 29, 2006, respectively, and it is undisputed that the claims were not paid or denied within 30 days of their receipt. Nor does defendant claim that the EUOs of Drs. Mayard and Berardi were requested, or pending, during that time. We note that defendant’s January 15, 2007 letter purporting to delay payment of the claims is insufficient to toll the 30-day statutory time period{**37 Misc 3d at 93} within which a claim must be paid or denied (see Points of Health Acupuncture, P.C. v Lancer Ins. Co., 28 Misc 3d 133[A], 2010 NY Slip Op 51338[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2010]). Accordingly, defendant failed to demonstrate that these two claims had been timely denied and therefore it has not established that its defense, that plaintiff failed to comply with a condition precedent to coverage, is not precluded as to these two causes of action (see Westchester Med. Ctr. v Lincoln Gen. Ins. Co., 60 AD3d 1045, 1046 [2009]; cf. Unitrin Advantage Ins. Co. v Bayshore Physical Therapy, PLLC, 82 AD3d 559 [1st Dept 2011]).

However, defendant did raise a triable issue of fact with respect to the third through ninth causes of action by demonstrating that the time to pay or deny the claims comprising those causes of action had been tolled by the timely issuance of EUO scheduling letters, that the doctors had failed to appear for either of two properly scheduled EUOs, and that the claims had been timely denied on April 10, 2007 (see ARCO Med. N.Y., P.C., 2011 NY Slip Op 52382[U]).

We note that there is no merit to the reasons given by the Civil Court in finding that defendant had not raised a triable issue of fact in response to plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. First, there is nothing in the no-fault regulations prohibiting an insurer from scheduling an EUO outside the county in which the applicant is located (cf. CPLR 3110 [regarding where a deposition shall be taken]). Insurance Department Regulations (11 NYCRR) § 65-3.5 (e) requires only that “[a]ll examinations under oath and medical examinations requested by the insurer shall be held at a place and time reasonably convenient to the applicant,” and the Civil Court did not make a finding that the location chosen for the subject EUOs was not reasonably convenient to the applicant. Furthermore, appearance at an EUO is a [*3]condition precedent to coverage (see Insurance Department Regulations [11 NYCRR] § 65-1.1; Stephen Fogel Psychological, P.C. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 35 AD3d 720 [2006]; W & Z Acupuncture, P.C. v Amex Assur. Co., 24 Misc 3d 142[A], 2009 NY Slip Op 51732[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2009]), and there is no requirement that defendant establish willful noncompliance with an EUO request.

In light of the foregoing, the order is modified by providing that the branches of plaintiff’s motion seeking summary judgment on the third through ninth causes of action are denied.

Pesce, P.J., Weston and Rios, JJ., concur.

[*1]

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Department, 2d, 11th and 13th Judicial Districts, July 12, 2012

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

Law Offices of Karen C. Dodson, New York City (Michael L. Rappaport of counsel), for appellant. Law Office of Ilona Finkelshteyn, Brooklyn (Emilia Rutigliano and Jonathan R. Vitarelli of counsel), for respondent.

{**37 Misc 3d at 20} OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, without costs, and the matter is remitted to the Civil Court for a new trial.

In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, the Civil Court, by order entered April 28, 2008, limited the trial to the issue of the medical necessity of the supplies provided. At the nonjury trial, defendant proffered the testimony of Dr. Susan Corcoran, the physician who had prepared the peer review report upon which the denial of the claim at issue had been based. Dr. Corcoran testified that she had obtained the facts of the case from, among other things, the claim form, the medical records (which she listed in her report), and the police accident report. The claim form was admitted into evidence without objection, but [*2]the court sustained plaintiff’s objections to the admission into evidence of other documents, including the medical records. While Dr. Corcoran testified that she could conclude that certain items, such as the cervical pillow or the lumbar cushion, were not medically necessary based solely upon the information contained in the claim form—because she had never seen such equipment used to treat an injury of any sort—she ultimately did not attempt to proffer any testimony which would have required her to refer to documents which the court had previously held were inadmissible.

Defendant’s employee, Jemma Keating, testified as to, among other things, defendant’s practices and procedures when it receives medical documentation concerning an eligible injured person. When defendant sought, for the second time, to admit the medical documentation into evidence, the Civil Court again sustained plaintiff’s objection. The court then granted plaintiff’s motion for judgment in the entire amount sought in the complaint. A judgment was subsequently entered, from which defendant appeals.{**37 Misc 3d at 21}

The question before the court is whether defendant was entitled to have the medical records submitted to it by plaintiff (or plaintiff’s assignor or other medical professionals who had provided services or supplies to plaintiff’s assignor) admitted into evidence so as to enable Dr. Corcoran to testify regarding her expert opinion that the medical supplies at issue were not medically necessary—an opinion she reached after reviewing this medical documentation. We conclude, for the reasons set forth below, that the medical documentation should have been admitted into evidence and, thus, we reverse the judgment and remit the matter to the Civil Court for a new trial to afford defendant an opportunity to establish its defense of lack of medical necessity.

The basis for this action is plaintiff’s claim that it provided medically necessary supplies to its assignor for injuries arising from a covered accident, and that it was not paid for these supplies. In a no-fault case, submission of a properly completed claim form is all that is needed to establish, prima facie, that the supplies at issue were medically necessary (see West Tremont Med. Diagnostic, P.C. v GEICO Ins. Co., 13 Misc 3d 131[A], 2006 NY Slip Op 51871[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2006]; Amaze Med. Supply v Eagle Ins. Co., 2 Misc 3d 128[A], 2003 NY Slip Op 51701[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2003]), and, upon a demonstration that the claim form is admissible pursuant to the business records exception to the hearsay rule (CPLR 4518), the claim form will constitute sufficient prima facie evidence of the fact and the amount of the loss sustained (see 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]). Here, in limiting the trial to the issue of the medical necessity of the supplies provided, the Civil Court implicitly found that plaintiff had established these elements. In other words, plaintiff, as the assignee of benefits under a no-fault insurance policy, demonstrated its entitlement, in the first instance, to recover payment for providing medical supplies to its assignor, without having to proffer any specific testimony or proof as to the facts underlying its claim, including the injury sustained or the treatment rendered by the prescribing physician, or to affirmatively demonstrate that the supplies{**37 Misc 3d at 22} were medically necessary. The burden then shifted to defendant to establish a lack of medical necessity.^[FN*] [*3]

However, recognizing that it would be impossible for an expert witness to proffer an opinion regarding the medical necessity of the supplies at issue without discussing the facts underlying the claim, plaintiff argues that defendant must now prove those facts itself before being allowed to present its defense that, based upon the information provided to it regarding the injury sustained and the treatment rendered, it had correctly denied the claim on the ground that the supplies were not medically necessary. We reject plaintiff’s argument.

A no-fault insurer cannot know with certainty, merely based upon reviewing medical records, what injuries a patient sustained or how he was treated—it can only act on what it has been told. The insurer is, however, permitted to deny a no-fault claim based upon a peer review report which opines that there was a lack of medical necessity for the services or supplies provided (see Insurance Department Regulations [11 NYCRR] § 65-3.8 [b] [4]). It follows that an insurer is entitled, or even expected, to rely on the documents submitted to it by the eligible injured person (and such person’s assignees, who stand in the shoes of the assignor [see Zeldin v Interboro Mut. Indem. Ins. Co., 44 AD3d 652 (2007)]), when determining whether to pay a claim or to deny it on the ground that the services or supplies provided lacked medical necessity.

However, in denying a claim for a lack of medical necessity based upon a peer review report, an insurer is not seeking to establish the truth of the facts set forth in the medical documentation submitted to it. Instead, as this court has previously explained, the insurer is merely stating that, assuming the facts set forth in the medical documentation are true, it is not required to pay for the services or supplies at issue because they were not medically necessary to treat the alleged injury (see Alrof, Inc. v Progressive Ins. Co., 34 Misc 3d 29 [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2011]; Urban Radiology, P.C. v Tri-State Consumer Ins. Co., 27 Misc 3d 140[A], 2010 NY Slip Op 50987[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2010]). Thus, we reiterate that, in this context, the medical records are not being used for a hearsay purpose, but rather only to demonstrate that the information contained therein had been{**37 Misc 3d at 23} conveyed to defendant (see Quiroa v Ferenczi, 77 AD3d 901, 901 [2010]; Gelpi v 37th Ave. Realty Corp., 281 AD2d 392 [2001]; Urban Radiology, P.C., 27 Misc 3d 140[A], 2010 NY Slip Op 50987[U] [2010]). Here, there was testimony sufficient to establish that the medical documentation reviewed by Dr. Corcoran had in fact been submitted to defendant by plaintiff, plaintiff’s assignor, or other medical professionals who had provided no-fault benefits to plaintiff’s assignor. Accordingly, it was error to sustain plaintiff’s objection to the admissibility of the records.

We note that the holdings in Hambsch v New York City Tr. Auth. (63 NY2d 723 [1984]) and Wagman v Bradshaw (292 AD2d 84 [2002]), where the plaintiffs’ expert witnesses sought to rely on out-of-court medical records in order to prove the fact of the plaintiffs’ injuries, are not relevant to the instant case, since defendant is not relying on the medical documentation at issue to prove the fact of plaintiff’s assignor’s injuries.

In view of the foregoing, the judgment is reversed and the matter is remitted to the Civil Court for a new trial. [*4]

Pesce, P.J., Rios and Aliotta, JJ., concur.

Footnotes

Footnote *: Assuming the insurer is successful in satisfying its burden, it is ultimately plaintiff who must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the services or supplies were medically necessary.

Supreme Court, Nassau County

12683-11

Law Offices of Bryan M. Rothenberg, Attorneys for Plaintiff.

Gary Tsirelman, Esq., Attorney for Defendant All Boro Psychological Services, P.C.

Montfort, Healy, McGuire & Salley, LLP, Attorneys for Defendant Roxanne Chowdry.

The Rybak Firm, PLLC, Attorneys for Defendants Amega, Inc., Healing Art Acupuncture, P.C., J.C. Healing Touch Rehab PT, P.C., North East Empire Medical, P.C., SS Medical Care, P.C., True Align Chiropractic Care, P.C., and ZG Chiropractic Care, P.C.

Steven M. Jaeger, J.

The following papers read on this motion:

Order to Show Cause and AffirmationX

Notice of Cross Motion and AffirmationX

AffidavitX

Opposition to Defendant’s Cross MotionX

Affirmation in OppositionX

Affirmation in SupportX

Reply in SupportX [*2]

ReplyX

Order to show cause pursuant to CPLR 6301 and 2201 by the plaintiff 21st Century Advantage Insurance Company for an order, inter alia, staying and enjoining all presently pending and future lawsuits and arbitrations instituted as against the plaintiff for (1) the recovery of no-fault benefits; and/or (2) reimbursement for

health care services rendered pursuant to stated automobile insurance polices previously issued by the plaintiff.

Cross motion pursuant by codefendant All Boro Psychological Services, P.C., for an order: (1) dismissing the plaintiff’s complaint to CPLR 3211[a][4]; or alternatively, (2) severing the claims asserted against it pursuant to CPLR 603 and 1002[c]; and/or (3) extending its time to serve an answer to the verified complaint pursuant to CPLR 3012[d] and 2004.

In August of 2011, the plaintiff 21st Century Advantage Insurance Company [“the plaintiff”], commenced the within insurance fraud action as against various no-fault, health care providers and individual defendant-policyholders. The verified complaint alleges in substance that during a ten-month period between June of 2009 and January of 2010, certain individual defendants engaged in a fraudulent scheme to illegally procure approximately ten automobile insurance policies (Cmplt., ¶¶ 5-7; 142; 161, 181, 195).

More specifically, the plaintiff contends, inter alia, that: the named individual defendants and others, applied for the subject policies by telephone or over the internet by using common telephone and facsimile numbers; that the applicants used invalid bank accounts and bogus credit cards to do so; and that thereafter — mostly within 60 days of the policy issuance dates and before non-payment-based cancellation notices could become effective — the fraudulently insured vehicles were involved in “staged,” side-swipe or rear-end type accidents, for which false claims were filed (Keane Aff., ¶¶ 4-8; 10-11; Mirabella Aff., ¶¶ 9-11).

The verified complaint further alleges that after the allegedly false claims were filed, the plaintiff requested information from its insureds and others, and also scheduled examinations under oath [“EUO”], as authorized by the policies (Cmplt., ¶¶ 154-159; 192-195, 249-250, 280). The defendants, however, either failed to appear for the EUOs or testified in an evasive, suspicious and inconsistent manner with respect to the policy application process and the occurrence of the subject accidents (Keane Aff., ¶¶ 9-10; Cmplt., ¶¶ 153-155; 172-[*3]173; 194; 203-204, 229; 280).

With respect to one policy transaction in particular, the complaint avers that the “unlisted” driver who was actually operating the insured’s vehicle during the accident (which occurred nine days after the policy was issued), appeared for an EUO and testified that: inter alia, he was offered money by the named insured to become involved in an accident; that specifically, he was instructed to rear-end another vehicle; and that he was then told by the named insured to apply for no- fault therapy benefits after the accident occurred (Cmplt., ¶¶ 203-204).

The plaintiff asserts that in sum, and based on its investigation, none of the individual defendants provided evidence demonstrating that the policy applications and ensuing accidents were bona fide — as opposed to intentionally staged, sham incidents designed to defraud the plaintiff (Keane Aff., ¶¶ 11-12).

The plaintiff’s verified complaint sets forth five causes of action and demands, among other things, declaratory relief rescinding and/or voiding the policies (Cmplt., ¶¶ 325- 361).

In light of its assertion that the subject policies were fraudulently obtained and void, the plaintiff thereafter declined to reimburse certain health care providers who supplied no-fault medical services to the insured defendants (Cmplt., ¶¶ 56-140). As a result, approximately 100 of those health care providers later commenced no-fault reimbursement actions against the plaintiff in the New York City Civil Court (Mirabella Reply Aff., ¶ 6).

In December of 2011, the plaintiff moved by order to show cause (with temporary restraining order) to enjoin the prosecution and/or commencement of all actions and arbitrations — pending or to be commenced in the future — arising out of the issuance of the subject policies (OSC, ¶¶ [a]-[c]).

Upon receipt of the plaintiff’s papers, the Court signed the proposed temporary restraining order contained therein, which effectively stayed all current and future actions and/or arbitrations pending the return date of the plaintiff’s main application (Jaeger, J.).

Codefendant All Boro Psychological Services, P.C [“All Boro”] has opposed the plaintiff’s application and also cross moved for stated relief, including dismissal of the plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211[a][4] based on a Civil Court reimbursement action it commenced against the plaintiff. Alternatively, All Boro has requested a severance (CPLR 603; 1002[c]), and if that relief is denied, All Boro has sought leave to file a late answer to the verified complaint (see, CPLR 2004; 3012[b]).

With respect to its CPLR 3211[a][4] dismissal claim (“another action [*4]pending”), All Boro asserts that in June of 2011 a few months before the plaintiff commenced this action — it instituted its own no-fault, reimbursement action against the plaintiff in the New York City Civil Court (Chin Aff., ¶¶ 2—6; Exh., “3”). The All Boro Civil Court complaint alleges in sum, that All Boro provided covered, no-fault medical services to one of the individual defendants in this action, “Shameeka Moore” (Chin Aff., ¶¶ 2—6; Exh., “3”). According to All Boro’s Civil Court complaint, despite due demand, the plaintiff has declined to pay the sum of $1181.73 — the amount allegedly now due and owing for the health care services it rendered.

A number of additional, non-moving providers have also opposed the plaintiff’s motion, i.e., codefendants Amega, Inc., Healing Art Acupuncture, P.C.; J.C. Healing Touch Rehab PT, P.C.; North East Empire Medical, P.C.; SS Medical Care, P.C.; True Align Chiropractic Care, P.C.; True Align Chiropractic Care P.C., and ZG Chiropractic Care, P.C — and also Roxana Chowdhry (a non-insured alleged accident victim).

The plaintiff’s order to show cause is now before the Court for review and resolution. The order to show cause should be granted. All Boro’s cross motion is granted to the limited extent indicated below.

Preliminarily, although the plaintiff cites to, inter alia, CPLR 2201 as authority for its application, CPLR 2201 applies to stays issued in matters pending before the motion Court (e.g., Peluso v Red Rose Rest., Inc., 78 AD3d 802, 803; St. Paul Travelers Ins. Co. v. Nandi, ___Misc.3d___, 2007 WL 1662050, at 8 [Supreme Court, Queens County 2007]; Siegel, New York Practice, § 256, at 435-436 [4th ed] see, New York Cent. Mut. Ins. Co. v. McGee, ___Misc.3d ___, 2009 WL 4068474, at 6 [Supreme Court, Kings County 2009], modified on different grounds, 87 AD3d 622 see also, Autoone Ins. Co. v. Manhattan Heights Medical, P.C., ___Misc.3d.___, 2009 WL 2357009, at 2-3 [Supreme Court, Queens County 2009]). Here, the plaintiff’s order to show cause demands relief enjoining actions and arbitrations pending in a variety of different forums. Accordingly, the motion is properly viewed as one for a preliminary injunction — to which the requirements prescribed by Article 63 are therefore applicable (St. Paul Travelers Ins. Co. v. Nandi, supra see also, Mercury Cas. Co. v. Inger Grant Lynbrook Adv Acupuncture, supra, 2011 WL 4874666 [Supreme Court, Nassau County 2011]; New York Cent. Mut. Ins. Co. v. McGee, supra cf., Urban Radiology, P.C. v. GEICO Ins. Co., ___Misc.3d.___, 2010 WL 3463018, at 2-3 [New York City Civil Court 2010]).

With respect to those requirements, “[a] party seeking the drastic remedy of [*5]a preliminary injunction has the burden of demonstrating, by clear and convincing evidence, (1) a likelihood of ultimate success on the merits, (2) the prospect of irreparable injury if the provisional relief is withheld, and (3) a balancing of the equities in the movant’s favor” (Perpignan v. Persaud, 91 AD3d 622, 623 see also, Nobu Next Door, LLC v. Fine Arts Housing, Inc., 4 NY3d 839, 840 [2005]; Aetna Ins. Co. v. Capasso, 75 NY2d 860, 862 [1990]; Doe v. Axelrod, 73 NY2d 748, 750 [1988]). However, conclusive proof is not required (Arcamone-Makinano v. Britton Property, Inc., 83 AD3d 623; 624; Ying Fung Moy v Hohi Umeki, 10 AD3d 604, 605), and the mere existence of an issue of fact will not itself be

grounds for the denial of the motion (see, CPLR 6312[c]; Reichman v. Reichman, 88 AD3d 680, 681; Ruiz v Meloney, 26 AD3d 485, 487).

“The decision to grant or deny a preliminary injunction lies within the sound discretion of the Supreme Court” (91-54 Gold Road, LLC v. Cross-Deegan Realty Corp., 93 AD3d 649).

With these principles in mind, and in the exercise of its discretion, the Court agrees that the plaintiff has established its entitlement to the injunctive relief sought. It is settled that “[a] deliberate collision caused in furtherance of an insurance fraud scheme is not a covered accident” (State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Laguerre, 305 AD2d 490, 491 see, Matter of Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v Goddard, 29 AD3d 698, 699; Eagle Ins. Co. v. Davis, 22 AD3d 846, 847; Matter of Metro Med. Diagnostics v Eagle Ins. Co., 293 AD2d 751, 752).

At bar, the plaintiff’s submissions include the affidavit of its Special Investigator, Sandra Keane, who was involved in the investigation, and the plaintiff’s 361 paragraph, complaint (verified by Ms. Keane), which provides a highly fact-specific, case-by case description of, inter alia, the manner in which the policies were acquired; the insured defendants’ alleged non-cooperation, and other relevant transactional facts depicting the allegedly suspicions and questionable nature of the applications made and the accidents which later occurred (see, Autoone Ins. Co. v. Manhattan Heights Medical, P.C., supra, 2009 WL 2357009, at 2-3 cf., Felsen v. Stop & Shop Supermarket Co., LLC, 83 AD3d 656, 657). These non-conclusory factual assertions are sufficient to prima facie establish a likelihood of success on the merits of the plaintiff’s fraud-based claims, i.e., that the policies were fraudulently acquired and therefore subject to rescission (Autoone Ins. Co. v. Manhattan Heights Medical, P.C., supra; St. Paul Travelers Ins. Co. v. Nandi, supra, 2007 WL 1662050, at 8).

The plaintiff has additionally demonstrated that the requested injunctive [*6]relief will serve to minimize repetitive litigation and arbitrations in which the same, potentially dispositive defenses and claims relating to the disputed policies will be raised (Autoone Ins. Co. v. Manhattan Heights Medical, P.C., supra). Similarly, and, “in view of the multiplicity of lawsuits and the possible inconsistent outcomes in the absence of an injunction, [the] plaintiff has established the elements of irreparable injury and the balancing of the equities in its favor” (St. Paul Travelers Ins. Co. v. Nandi, supra, 2007 WL 1662050, at 8).

Contrary to the plaintiff’s contentions, however, “[t]he Second Department has repeatedly emphasized that CPLR 6312[b] clearly and unequivocally requires the party seeking an injunction to give an undertaking'”(Schneck v. Schneck,___, Misc 3d.___, 2008 WL 5192626, at 6 [Supreme Court, Nassau County 2008], quoting from, Glorious Temple Church of God in Christ v. Dean Holding Corp., 35 AD3d 806, 807; 6312[b] see also, 91-54 Gold Road, LLC v. Cross-Deegan Realty Corp., supra, 93 AD3d 649, 650; Putter v. Singer, 73 AD3d 1147, 1149; Buckley v. Ritchie Knop, Inc., 40 AD3d 794, 796; Massapequa Water Dist. v. New York SMSA Ltd. Partnership, ___ Misc 3d.___, 2008 WL 779259 at 9 [Supreme Court, Nassau County, 2008])(Mirabella [Opp] Aff., ¶ 16).

Therefore, and as a condition to the granting of the above-referenced injunctive relief, the plaintiff shall file an undertaking as directedbelow in accord with the dictates of CPLR 6312(b)(Schneck v. Schneck, supra, 2008 WL 5192626, see also, Massapequa Water Dist. v. New York SMSA Ltd. Partnership, supra, 2008 WL 779259 at 9 [Supreme Court, Nassau County, 2008]; Buckley v. Ritchie Knop, Inc., supra).

Turning to All Boro’s cross motion, that branch the motion which is to dismiss the complaint based on the Civil Court reimbursement action should be denied (CPLR 3211[a][4]). In the exercise of its broad discretion pursuant to CPLR 3211[a][4](see, Clark v. Clark, 93 AD3d 812, 815), the Court agrees that dismissal of the subject action based on the pending, Civil Court matter is unwarranted, since, inter alia, the two actions lack the requisite degree of identity

in terms of the issues presented and the relief sought (Clark v. Clark, supra, at 815; Goldman v A & E Club Props., LLC, 89 AD3d 681, 683).

All Boro’s alternative demand for relief — denominated as a request for a severance — appears to be miscast (CPLR 603, 1002[c]). In substance, a severance is a discretionary measure which is “sparingly” exercised so as to minimize prejudice where, inter alia, common factual and legal issues are lacking and/or where a single trial of differing claims would negatively effect a substantial right [*7](Herskovitz v Klein, 91 AD3d 598, 599; New York Cent. Mut. Ins. Co. v. McGee, supra, 87 AD3d at 624; Bentoria Holdings, Inc. v Travelers Indem. Co., 84 AD3d 1135, 1137; Cole v Mraz, 77 AD3d 526, 528; Quiroz v Beitia, 68 AD3d 957, 960 see generally, Shanley v Callanan Indus., 54 NY2d 52, 57 [1981]).

Here, however, All Boro is apparently making the opposite claim; namely, that common legal and factual issues do, in fact, exist (see, Chin Reply Aff., ¶¶ 1-4). Where commonality exists, courts have denied severance requests, reasoning “that the interests of judicial economy and consistency of verdicts will be served by having a single trial” (Herskovitz v Klein, supra; Golden Eagle Capital Corp. v Paramount Mgt. Corp., 88 AD3d 646, 648; Quiroz v Beitia, supra, 68 AD3d 957, 960). Alternatively, to the extent that All Boro is arguing that its Civil Court action should be exempted from the subject injunction (Chin Reply Aff., ¶¶ 1-2), that result would be inconsistent with the Court’s granting of that remedy and could reintroduce the potential for conflicting results which the injunction was, in part, designed to minimize (cf., St. Paul Travelers Ins. Co. v. Nandi, supra, 2007 WL 1662050, at 8).

Lastly, that branch of the All Boro’s cross motion which is for leave to file a late answer, in the form annexed to its motion papers, is granted as unopposed (Chin Reply Aff., Exh., “1”).

The Court has considered the parties’ remaining contentions and concludes that they do not support an award of relief beyond that granted above.

Accordingly, it is,

ORDERED that the plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction is granted to the extent that terms of the temporary restraining order previously approved by the Court shall be continued during the pendency of the subject action, and it is further,

ORDERED that the plaintiff shall post an undertaking in the sum of $50,000.00 pursuant to CPLR 6312(b) within twenty (20) days of the date of this Order, and if such undertaking is not posted, the order to show cause is denied, and it is further,

ORDERED that the cross motion pursuant by codefendant All Boro Psychological Services, P.C., is granted to the limited extent that its application to serve the proposed answer annexed to its moving papers is granted, and the cross motion is otherwise denied.

The foregoing constitutes the decision and order of the Court.

Dated: May 24, 2012 [*8]

________________________________________

STEVEN M. JAEGER, A.J.S.C.

[*1]

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Department, 2d, 11th and 13th Judicial Districts, April 27, 2012

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

Law Offices of Alden Banniettis, Brooklyn (Jeff Henle of counsel), for appellant-respondent. Law Offices of Daniel J. Tucker, New York City (Netanel BenChaim of counsel), for respondent-appellant.

{**36 Misc 3d at 27} OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

Ordered that the order is modified by providing that the branch of plaintiff’s motion seeking a final order of preclusion is granted; as so modified, the order is affirmed, without costs.{**36 Misc 3d at 28}

In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, the parties entered into a “so-ordered” stipulation in which defendant agreed to serve responses to plaintiff’s interrogatories within 60 days of the date of the “so-ordered” stipulation or be precluded from offering evidence at trial. After defendant failed to serve its responses by the specified date, in fact serving them more than one year later than required, plaintiff moved for a final order of preclusion and, upon preclusion, for summary judgment, and defendant cross-moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The Civil Court denied plaintiff’s motion, finding that plaintiff had not been prejudiced by the late service of the responses, and denied defendant’s cross motion, on the ground that there were issues of fact precluding summary judgment. Both parties appeal.

The “so-ordered” stipulation functioned as a conditional order of preclusion, which became absolute upon defendant’s failure to timely and sufficiently comply therewith (see Panagiotou v Samaritan Vil., Inc., 66 AD3d 979 [2009]; Blumenthal Chiropractic, P.C. v Praetorian Ins., 34 Misc 3d 135[A], 2011 NY Slip Op 52386[U] [App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2011]; Colonia Med., P.C. v Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 34 Misc 3d 127[A], 2011 NY Slip Op 52283[U] [App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2011]). Nevertheless, plaintiff moved for a final order of preclusion. Although it was unnecessary for plaintiff to make such further application to the court, in doing so, plaintiff authorized the court to revisit the issue of preclusion and to consider defendant’s opposition thereto. In order to avoid the adverse impact of the stipulation, defendant was required to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for the failure to timely comply with the stipulation, as well as the existence of a potentially meritorious defense to [*2]the action (see Kirkland v Fayne, 78 AD3d 660 [2010]). While defendant may have demonstrated a potentially meritorious defense to the action, it failed to demonstrate any excuse for its failure to timely comply with the stipulation. The Civil Court denied plaintiff’s motion for preclusion and, upon preclusion, for summary judgment, thereby, in effect, vacating the final order of preclusion, which had become absolute. In our opinion, this was an improvident exercise of discretion since defendant did not offer any excuse for its 13-month delay in complying with the stipulation. Accordingly, the branch of plaintiff’s motion seeking a final order of preclusion should have been granted.

A defendant’s preclusion from introducing evidence at trial does not automatically entitle a plaintiff to summary judgment{**36 Misc 3d at 29} or relieve the plaintiff of the burden of proving its case (see Mendoza v Highpoint Assoc., IX, LLC, 83 AD3d 1 [2011]). In the instant case, plaintiff’s moving papers failed to establish a prima facie entitlement to summary judgment (see CPLR 4518; Insurance Law § 5106 [a]; Westchester Med. Ctr. v Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 78 AD3d 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, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2011]; Dan Med., P.C. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 14 Misc 3d 44 [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2006]). Accordingly, the Civil Court properly denied the branch of plaintiff’s motion seeking summary judgment.

On appeal, defendant argues that it was not precluded from offering evidence in support of its cross motion for summary judgment because the so-ordered stipulation barred it only from offering evidence “at trial.” However, to allow defendant to use evidence in support of its cross motion which it is barred from introducing at trial “would perversely undermine the point of the order by allowing defendant to benefit from the shortcut of summary judgment by use of the same evidence that otherwise would have been barred at trial” (Mendoza, 83 AD3d at 9). Accordingly, defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment, which sought to establish that the equipment provided by plaintiff was not medically necessary, was properly denied, albeit on grounds other than those set forth by the Civil Court.

Pesce, P.J., Weston and Rios, JJ., concur.

Supreme Court, Nassau County

1411/12

Economou & Economou, Attorney for Petitioner, 485 Underhill Boulevard, Syosset, NY 11791

Brian Rothenberg, Attorney for Respondent, 100 Duffy Avenue, Hicksville, NY 11801

Robert A. Bruno, J.

Upon the foregoing papers, it is ordered that this motion is decided as follows:

Petitioner requests an Order pursuant to Article 75 and CPLR §3102( c), compelling disclosure and discovery to aid in arbitration; and, pursuant to Article 75 and CPLR §2201(b) staying any and all proceedings present, and staying the filing of any new proceedings which seek reimbursement of no-fault benefits pursuant to Article 51 (Comprehensive Motor Vehicle Insurance Reparations Act) and 11 NYCRR 65 (Regulations Implementing the Comprehensive Motor Vehicle Insurance Reparations Act) pending the compliance with such order. Respondent opposes said application.

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR Article 75, to, inter alia, stay arbitration of certain No-Fault proceedings, the petitioning insurance carriers move pursuant to CPLR 3102[c] for an order: (1) compelling disclosure and discovery in aid of arbitration from the defendant Kissena Medical Imaging, P.C.; and/or (2) staying certain pending arbitrations commenced by Kissena Medical Imaging, P.C., and temporarily enjoining and/or staying it from commencing any further No-Fault arbitration proceedings for reimbursement of benefits as against the petitioners.

The petitioner insurance companies — over 40 in total — have commenced the within proceeding to stay certain pending and/or anticipated no-fault arbitrations and/or “any and all proceedings” which have been, or will be, instituted by the respondent No-Fault provider/medical corporation, Kissena Medical Imaging, P.C. [“Kissena”](Pet., ¶¶ 4-5; 19-20; Exh., “A”). The petition also demands stated disclosure in aid of the foregoing arbitration proceedings, four of which — the petitioners claim — are currently pending (Pet., ¶¶ 19-20).

According to the petitioning carriers, Kissena has billed them for radiological services it has provided to injured no-fault claimants, from whom Kissena received benefit assignments (Caio Aff., ¶¶ 6-7). The carriers have declined, however, to pay the Kissena bills, arguing in sum that Kissena is an illegally constituted and/or fraudulently incorporated medical service corporation in violation of applicable no-fault rules and regulations (see generally, State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Mallela, 4 NY3d 313, 320-321 [2005]; One Beacon Ins. Group, LLC v. Midland Medical Care, P.C., 54 AD3d 738, 740).

More specifically, the relief sought by the petitioners is based on allegations that: (1) Kissena [*2]has been fraudulently incorporated by “paper” owner, Lawrence N. Diamond, M.D; (2) it “appears” that Kissena is secretly owned and controlled by a non-physician in violation of New York law; and (3) that Kissena has billed the plaintiffs for services performed by independent contractors, not by Kissena employees, also in violation stated No-Fault rules and regulations (Pet., ¶¶ 4-7, 9-12, 15-16, 18). In response, Kissena has commenced certain arbitration proceedings under the No-Fault law to recover payment for the services it has rendered.

Significantly, apart from the four arbitrations identified in an attachment to the petition (Exh., “A”), the petition does not allege that the remaining carriers have actually received specifically identified claims or arbitration demands from Kissena; nor does it identify precisely what arbitrations — pending or otherwise — are imminent with respect to the extensive list of carriers whose names have been included in the caption.

The disclosure sought in connection with the application is extensive and requests, inter alia: the production of Kissena’s owner, Lawrence N. Diamond, M.D., for a deposition; the identity of all billing and management companies and/or agents for Kissena; all written agreements and contracts, including those between Kissena and any billing and/or management agents; all written agreements between Diamond personally and any of Kissena’s billing or management companies or agents; all contracts between Diamond and Kissena; all financial statements of Kissena, including all banks records for accounts maintained by Kissena; all federal and state tax documentation, including all filings and returns for both for Kissena and Diamond personally; all corporate documents/leases for premises where the clinic may be located; and as well as all equipment leases, documents of incorporation and all filings made with the Secretary of State (Pet., ¶ 32).

Upon submission of the petitioners’ order to show cause, this Court struck the temporary restraining order contained therein. The foregoing temporary restraining order would have broadly stayed “any and all” pending proceedings and enjoined Kissena from commencing any additional arbitration matters as against all of the named petitioners (Order to Show Cause, 2nd and 3rd decretal paragraphs).

The petitioners’ underlying application for injunctive relief and discovery in aid of arbitration is now before the Court. The application should be denied.

It is settled that petitioner seeking disclosure in aid of an arbitration pursuant to CPLR 3102[c] must affirmatively demonstrate that “extraordinary circumstances” exist, “such that this relief would be absolutely necessary for the protection of its rights” (see, Progressive Specialty Ins. Co. v. Alexis, 90 AD3d 933, 834; Travelers Indem. Co. v. United Diagnostic Imaging, P.C., 73 AD3d 791, 792 see also, De Sapio v. Kohlmeyer, 35 NY2d 402, 406 [1974]; Hendler & Murray v. Lambert, 147 AD2d 442, 443 cf., Government Employees Ins. Co. v. Morris, 83 AD3d 709; Kissena Medical Imaging, P.C., 25 Misc 3d 1214(A), 901 NYS2d 911, 2009 WL 3337597 [Supreme Court, Nassau County 2009]). Indeed, disclosure devices are to be “sparingly used in arbitration proceedings'” (De Sapio v. Kohlmeyer, supra, 35 NY2d 402, 406; Travelers Indem. Co. v. United Diagnostic Imaging, P.C., supra, 73 AD3d at 792; Matter of Flood, 157 AD2d 780, 781).

With these principles in mind, the Court agrees that the petitioners have not sustained their [*3]burden of demonstrating that extraordinary circumstances exist (Travelers Indem. Co. v. United Diagnostic Imaging, P.C., supra).

Significantly, in opposition to the motion, Kissena has persuasively argued, among other things, that: (1) it has been duly incorporated by a physician licensed to practice medicine in the State of New York; (2) the affidavits submitted by the carriers’ investigators (who are apparently employees of one particular carrier), are inconclusive and lacking in the requisite factual detail; and (3) only two arbitration proceedings (with amounts in issue of $2,670.40 and $878.67) are actually now pending before an arbitrator, which claims have been denied on medical necessity grounds (Caio Aff., ¶¶ 31, 41-45, 48, 50, 52). The record also supports Kissena’s assertions that many of the document demands are excessively broad and unlimited in their temporal scope (cf., Accent Collections, Inc. v. Cappelli Enterprises, Inc., 84 AD3d 1283). The petitioners have not submitted reply papers in which they have responded to, or otherwise materially disputed, the foregoing assertions.

Lastly, there is no dispute that the petitioners possess the right to request that the involved arbitrators direct Kissena to produce materials relating to, inter alia, Kissena’s corporate structure(Travelers Indem. Co. v. United Diagnostic Imaging, P.C., supra, 73 AD3d at 791-792). Nor does the evidence indicate “that if a disclosure directive is made during those proceedings, the requested disclosure will, at that point, be unavailable” (Travelers Indem. Co. v. United Diagnostic Imaging, P.C., supra). Surprisingly, during oral argument when this Court struck petitioner’s application for a temporary restraining order, petitioner’s admitted they did not bother seeking the discovery they are requesting herein, in the arbitrary proceeding they request this Court to stay.

Under these circumstances, and upon the exercise of its broad discretion, the Court agrees that the petitioners’ submissions do not establish the existence of extraordinary circumstances warranting the requested, discovery in aid of arbitration.

The Court has considered the petitioners’ remaining contentions and concludes that they are lacking in merit.

According, it is,

ORDERED petitioners’ order to show cause pursuant to CPLR 3102[c], for an order, inter alia, granting a stay and stated discovery in aid of arbitration, is denied.

All matters not decided herein are DENIED.

This constitutes the decision and order of this Court.

Dated: April 23, 2012

Mineola, New YorkE N T E R: [*4]

______________________________

Hon. Robert A. Bruno, J.S.C.

[*1]

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department, April 13, 2012

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

Jaffe & Koumourdas, LLP, New York City (Ariel S. Lichterman of counsel), for appellant. Gina Gleicher and Leon Kucherovsky, New York City, for respondent.

{**35 Misc 3d at 67} OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

Order entered April 9, 2010, modified by granting defendant’s motion to the extent of reducing the amount of the judgment entered against it to the aggregate sum of $1,251; as modified, order affirmed, without costs.

The parties agree that the underlying no-fault first-party action was validly settled, but join issue as to the intended amount of the settlement. The facts leading up to the settlement are undisputed and may be briefly stated as follows: Plaintiff, through counsel, drafted and presented a proposed settlement agreement, dated October 21, 2008, which set forth all material terms of the settlement and provided, in paragraph 4, that “[t]his case is not settled unless this stipulation is signed by a representative of defendant and faxed back to [plaintiff’s attorney].” Upon receipt of plaintiff’s proposal, defense counsel made and initialed several handwritten changes to paragraph 2 of the document—addressing the consequences of a payment default on defendant’s part—with the changes designed to extend the time allotted to defendant to comply with the agreement’s payment terms and, more importantly here, to reduce defendant’s payment obligations in the event it failed to comply. So far as shown, plaintiff voiced no objection to the modifications proposed by defendant nor took any other action in the case for a full six months after defense counsel marked up and returned the stipulation, until March 2009, when plaintiff entered judgment in accordance with the original terms of the stipulation favorable to it.

Given the particular facts and circumstances of this case, and since plaintiff itself acknowledges that the parties’ correspondence yielded an enforceable settlement agreement, we conclude that plaintiff, through “acquiescent conduct” (Eldor Contr. Corp. v County of Nassau, 272 AD2d 509, 509 [2000])—including its election to forgo any further litigation activity on its no-fault claim—accepted and is bound by the stipulation’s revised terms (see Minelli Constr. Co., Inc. v Volmar Constr., Inc., 82 AD3d 720, 722 [2011]). Accordingly, the amount of the consent [*2]judgment issued below must be reduced to the stipulated principal sum of $950, together with the stipulated attorney’s fees ($196) and costs ($105) due plaintiff.

We note finally that the judgment at issue “is not a default judgment as that term is used in pleading and practice, and [the{**35 Misc 3d at 68} motion court’s] application of law relating to vacating default judgments was erroneous” (Furgang v Epstein, 106 AD2d 609, 610 [1984]).

Torres, J.P., Shulman and Hunter, Jr., JJ., concur.

[*1]

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Department, 2d, 11th and 13th Judicial Districts, April 4, 2012

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

Gary Tsirelman, P.C., Brooklyn (Irena Golodkeyer of counsel), for appellant. Bruno, Gerbino & Soriano, LLP, Melville (Charles W. Benton of counsel), for respondent.

{**35 Misc 3d at 51} OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs.

In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, plaintiff appeals from an order granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on condition that, within 60 days, defendant serve and file the moving affidavit of Marcy Gonzalez, accompanied by a certificate of conformity in compliance with CPLR 2309 (c).

Defendant denied plaintiff’s claims on the ground that plaintiff’s assignors had failed to appear for scheduled examinations under oath (EUOs). In support of its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, defendant submitted several affidavits, which, among other things, sufficiently set forth defendant’s procedures for mailing EUO scheduling letters and denial of claim forms (see St. Vincent’s Hosp. of Richmond v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 50 AD3d 1123 [2008]; Delta Diagnostic Radiology, P.C. v Chubb Group of Ins., 17 Misc 3d 16 [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2007]). In opposition to defendant’s motion, plaintiff argued that the certificate of conformity which accompanied the affidavit of Marcy Gonzalez, defendant’s claims representative, did not comply with CPLR 2309 (c). While an affidavit which is executed outside of New York State must be accompanied by a certificate of conformity, a court may permit a party to secure such certificate later and give it nunc pro tunc effect (see Moccia v Carrier Car Rental, Inc., 40 AD3d 504 [2007]; Ave T MPC Corp. v Amica Mut. Ins. Co., 29 Misc 3d 136[A], 2010 NY Slip Op 52009[U] [App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2010]). Here, the Civil Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion when it afforded defendant an opportunity to cure the defect within 60 days by submitting a certificate of conformity in compliance with CPLR 2309 (c). Plaintiff’s remaining contentions lack merit.{**35 Misc 3d at 52} [*2]

Accordingly, the order conditionally granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment is affirmed.

We note that our review is limited to the order entered February 9, 2009 and we do not pass upon whether any certificate of conformity subsequently submitted by defendant complied with CPLR 2309 (c), as said issue is not properly before this court on this appeal.

Pesce, P.J., Weston and Rios, JJ., concur.

Supreme Court, Nassau County

4399-10

Attorneys for Plaintiffs- McDonnell & Adels, PLLC, 401 Franklin Avenue, Garden City, NY 11530

and Rivkin Radler LLP, 926 RXR Plaza, Uniondale, NY 11556

Attorneys for Defendants- The Zuppa Frim, PLLC, 53 Herbert Street, Brooklyn, NY 11222

Steven M. Jaeger, J.

The following papers read on this motion: [*2]

Notice of Motion, Affirmation, and ExhibitsX

Affirmation in Opposition and ExhibitsX

Memorandum of Law on Behalf of Defendants in OppositionX

Reply Memorandum of LawX

Memorandum of LawX

Motion by plaintiff for judgment pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) dismissing defendants’ second, third, fourth, fifth and sixth counterclaims as alleged in defendants’ [Second] Amended Answer and Counterclaims is granted, with prejudice as to the second, third, fifth, and sixth counterclaims, and without prejudice as to the fourth counterclaim. The first cause of action for breach of contract is severed and continued.

In 2010 plaintiff commenced this action for a declaratory judgment and to recover no-fault payments made to the defendant professional corporations. Defendants asserted six counterclaims in their amended answer. Plaintiff previously sought dismissal of five of the counterclaims, and on that motion this Court directed defendants to serve a second amended answer and counterclaims in compliance with statutory pleading requirements (Order dated August 10, 2011, annexed as Exhibit E to plaintiff’s moving papers).

Plaintiff now seeks dismissal of the same five counterclaims for consequential damages, common law fraud, violation of General Business Law ｧ349, punitive damages, and violation of Judiciary Law ｧ487, as alleged in the [Second] Amended Answer and Counterclaims. Plaintiff contends that defendants’ only sustainable cause of action is for breach of contract based upon State Farm’s allegedly improper failure to pay no-fault benefits.

3211 Dismissal Standard

On a motion to dismiss pursuant to CLR 3211, the facts as alleged must be accepted as true, the pleader must be accorded the benefit of every favorable inference, and the court must determine only whether the facts as alleged fit within any cognizable theory (Samiento v World Yacht Inc., 10 NY3d 70, 79 [2008]; Arnav Industries, Inc. Retirement Trust v Brown, Raysman, Millstein, Felder & Steiner, LLP, 96 NY2d 300, 303 [2001]). The criterion on a motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) is whether the pleader has a cause of action (Leon v Martinez, 84 NY2d 83, 88 [1994]).

Discussion

At the outset the Court notes for the record that defendants’ [Second] [*3]Amended Answer and Counterclaims is 79 pages long and contains 528 paragraphs, as compared to the Amended Answer and Counterclaims which was 172 pages long and contained 981 paragraphs. While this second amended pleading is shorter, it still suffers from “a mass of verbiage and superfluous matter” (Tankoos v Conford Realty Co., 248 AD 614 [2nd Dept 1936]). Nevertheless the Court will review the [Second] Amended Answer and Counterclaims pursuant to the dismissal standard of CPLR 3211(a)(7), to determine if defendants have a cause of action against plaintiff, other than one for breach of contract.

Fraud

The third counterclaim purports to allege a cause of action for common law fraud. Defendants allege that State Farm promised pre-accident policy holders, and by extension the defendants, that it would pay up to $50,000 per eligible injured person (EIP), that these promises were false, and that policy holders purchased insurance from State Farm in reliance upon these false promises. Post-accident misrepresentations included that State Farm would fairly adjust the EIPs’ claims, and timely pay all legitimate claims, and in reliance thereon, the defendants accepted the assignment of claims from EIP assignors who were State Farm policy holders. The post-accident representations include the alleged “predetermined” Independent Medical Examinations (“IMEs”), the alleged use of “fraud mills,” the alleged improper Peer Review Reports, alleged “sham investigations by legally unqualified investigators,” alleged improper use of Examinations Under Oath, alleged routine denial of proper claims, and alleged false and deceptive litigation practices.

A tort obligation is a duty imposed by law to avoid causing injury to others (New York University v Continental Ins. Co., 87 NY2d 308, 316 [1995]). A simple breach of contract is not to be considered a tort unless a legal duty independent of the contract itself has been violated (Clark-Fitzpatrick, Inc. v Long Is. R. R. Co., 70 NY2d 382, 389 [1987]; Yenrab, Inc v 794 Linden Realty LLC, 68 AD3d 755 [2nd Dept 2009]; Heffez v L & G General Const. Inc., 56 AD3d 526 [2nd Dept 2008]). This legal duty must spring from circumstances extraneous to, and not constituting elements of, the contract, although it may be connected with and dependent upon the contract (Clark-Fitzpatrick, Inc. at 389). Furthermore, the allegation that a party entered into a contract while lacking the intent to perform is insufficient to state a cause of action for fraud (Dune Deck Owners Corp v Liggett, 85 AD3d 1093 [2nd Dept 2011]; Stangel v Chen, 74 AD3d 1050 [2nd Dept 2010]).

Here, both the alleged pre-accident promises and post-accident [*4]misrepresentations arise out of the State Farm’s contractual obligation to honor its policies and make no-fault payments as required by the no-fault regulations. No separate obligation or tort duty to pay no-fault claims exists. On this record defendants have no cause of action against State Farm for fraud, and accordingly dismissal of the third cause of action for common law fraud must be granted.

General Business Law ｧ349

In the fourth counterclaim defendants allege that State Farm has committed multiple violations of General Business Law ｧ349. This statute declares as unlawful “[d]eceptive acts and practices in the conduct of any business, trade or commerce or in the furnishing of any service in this state” (Oswego Laborers’ Local 214 Pension Fund v Marine Midland Bank, 85 NY2d 20, 24 [1995]). To state a claim under this statute a pleader must allege (1) acts or practices that are “consumer oriented,” (2) that such acts or practices are misleading in a material way, and (3) that the pleader has suffered actual harm by reason of those acts (Gaidon v Guardian Life Ins Co of America, 94 NY2d 330, 344 [1999]). Conduct is “consumer oriented” if it has “a broader impact on consumers at large” and may “potentially affect similarly situated consumers” (Oswego at pp. 25-26).

Here, defendants allege that State Farm has used inaccurate and false information to improperly delay and deny claims, that such conduct is “likely to mislead a reasonable consumer in the Acupuncture PCs’ circumstances,” that consumers at large have been injured by such practices, and that such practices have caused actual harm to the Acupuncture PCs and the public in general (see [Second] Amended Answer and Counterclaims, pars. 505-510). The problem with this pleading is that defendants’ injury is indirect or derivative of that suffered by policy holders whose claims were allegedly delayed or denied, and therefore it appears that defendants lack standing to assert this ｧ349 claim.

An injury is indirect or derivative when the loss arises solely as a result of injuries sustained by another party (Blue Cross & Blue Shield of NJ Inc v Philip Morris USA Inc., 3 NY3d 200, 207 [2004]). If a pleader could avoid the derivative injury bar by merely alleging that its suit would somehow benefit the public, then the “tidal wave of litigation” guarded against in Oswego (85 NY2d at 26) “would loom ominously on the horizon” (City of New York v Smokes-Spirits.Com, Inc., 12 NY3d 616, 623 [2009]). Where, as here, the claimed injury arises wholly as a result of injury to others, and the pleader “is only secondarily damaged” (MVB Collision Inc v Progressive Ins. Co., 2010 WL 3617134 (Sup Ct, Nassau Cty, 2010)), the claimed injury is not compensable under ｧ349.

Defendants attempt to clear the standing hurdle by asserting that they are [*5]assignees of the policy holders whose claims were allegedly delayed or denied, and that as assignees, they stand in the shoes of the assignors ([Second] Amended Answer and Counterclaims, par.16). However the assignment of contractual claims does not automatically entail the right to assert tort claims arising from the contract (Banque Arabe et Internationale D’Investissement v Maryland Nat. Bank, 57 F3d 146, 151 [2d Cir 1995]; State of Ca. Public Employees’ Retirement Sys v Shearman & Sterling, 95 NY2d 427 [2000]; Fox v Hirschfeld, 157 App Div 364 [1st Dept 1913]). Assignments of rights under the no-fault law generally encompass the right of the assignee to sue for payment of the benefits provided tothe assignor. Whether such an assignment includes additional rights depends, inter alia, on the language of the assignment instrument, which has not been submitted to this Court. Under these circumstances dismissal of the fourth counterclaim for violation of General Business Law ｧ349 is granted without prejudice (see State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins Co. v Mallela, 175 F Supp 2d 401 [EDNY 2001]).

Judiciary Law ｧ487

Judiciary Law ｧ487, which governs misconduct by attorneys, provides for the recovery of treble damages from an attorney who is guilty of deceit or collusion, or an alleged chronic, extreme pattern of legal delinquency (Rock City Sound , Inc v Bashian & Farber, LLP, 74 AD3d 1168, 1172 [2nd Dept 2010], lv app dsmd 16 NY3d 826 [2011]; Izko v Sportswear Co, Inc, v Flaum, 25 AD3d 534, 537 [2nd Dept 2006]). This statutory cause of action is only applicable to attorneys and cannot extend derivative liability to a client (Yalkowsky v Century Apts. Assoc., 215 AD2d 214 [1st Dept 1995]).

Defendants’ sixth counterclaim for violation of Judiciary Law ｧ487 is based upon the allegation that State Farm’s General Counsel ratified and encouraged the submission of fraudulent affidavits in litigation involving defendants ([Second] Amended Answer and Counterclaims, par. 521). This does not suffice as a basis for a claim pursuant to Judiciary Law ｧ487 against State Farm, and the sixth counterclaim is summarily dismissed.

Consequential Damages

In the second counterclaim defendants seek consequential damages based upon “State Farm’s multiple breaches of contract” ([Second] Amended Answer and Counterclaims, par. 464). They seek damages for the loss of defendant Anikeyeva’s business, allegedly caused by the State Farm’s failure to pay no-fault benefits under its policies.

Consequential damages are recoverable for breach of contract in limited [*6]circumstances, where such damages were within the contemplation of the parties as the probable result of a breach at the time of, or prior to, contracting (Bi-Economy Market, Inc v Harleysville Ins Co of New York, 10 NY3d 187, 192 [2008], citing Kenford Co v County of Erie, 73 NY2d 312, 319 [1989]). Defendants were not yet on the scene at the time that the subject insurance policies were issued by State Farm to its policy holders. Therefore, there could have been no contemplation of defendants’ consequential damages at the time the policies were issued. In short, defendants simply have no cause of action for consequential damages based upon the allegations of State Farm’s multiple breaches of contract. Accordingly dismissal of the second counterclaim for consequential damages must be granted.

Punitive Damages

The fifth counterclaim purports to allege a cause of action for punitive damages, based upon State Farm’s “far reaching pattern of false, deceptive and fraudulent conduct,” which “has harmed and will continue to harm, the public at large” ([Second Amended Answer and Counterclaims, par. 515).

New York does not recognize an independent cause of action for punitive damages (Rocanova v. Equitable Life Assur. Society. of U.S., 83 NY2d 603, 616, [1994]; Muniz v Mount Sinai Hosp. of Queens, 91 AD3d 612 [2nd Dept 2012]). Punitive damages are not recoverable for an ordinary breach of contract as their purpose is not to remedy private wrongs but to vindicate public rights (Rocanova at 613). Punitive damages are available where the conduct constituting or associated with the breach of contract is (1) actionable as an independent tort for which compensatory damages are ordinarily available, and (2) sufficiently egregious to warrant the additional imposition of exemplary damages (Rocanova at 613).

On this record defendants do not have an independent tort claim against State Farm, and for this reason there is no need for the Court to address the egregiousness of the alleged conduct by State Farm. Dismissal of the fifth counterclaim for punitive damages must be granted.

It is so Ordered.

Dated: March 13, 2012

__________________________________________

STEVEN M. JAEGER, A.J.S.C.