January 20, 2005

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

https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/midwood-acupuncture-p-c-v-state-farm-ins-co-2005-ny-slip-op-50055u/

Court: Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County
Judge: Spodek, J.
Decided: January 20, 2005
Citation: 2005 NY Slip Op 50055(U)
Posture: Other motion
Outcome: Provider prevailed
Issues: Discovery and procedure

Cite as

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

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.

The insurer's severance motion was denied because the four assigned claims shared legal questions and posed no undue burden or confusion. The provider sought unpaid no-fault benefits for services allegedly rendered to four assignors. The Civil Court, Kings County, denied the insurer's request for separate actions. Following Hempstead General Hosp. v Liberty Mut. Ins., claims involving a uniform insurance contract and common no-fault questions could remain joined despite separate accidents or individuals. The insurer submitted no documents showing an absence of common legal questions. CPLR 601 also permitted one plaintiff to join multiple claims against one defendant regardless of their relationship. Exercising its discretion, the court found no undue burden on the insurer or confusion for the factfinder.

Reported in New York Official Reports at 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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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

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.
Majestic Acupuncture, P.C. v Interboro Mut. Ins. Co. (2018 NY Slip Op 51785(U))The insurer failed to justify severance merely by citing separate accidents and numerous affirmative defenses.
Westchester Med. Ctr. v Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. (2006 NY Slip Op 50382(U))Four unrelated assigned claims remained joined because they shared a provider, insurer, uniform contract and no-fault questions.
Astoria Quality Med. Supply v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (2008 NY Slip Op 51855(U))Severance under CPLR 603 is discretionary and ordinarily stands on appeal absent prejudice to a substantial right.
Midwood Acupuncture, P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (2007 NY Slip Op 50052(U))Fraudulent licensing under 11 NYCRR 65-3.16 (a) (12) is a nonwaivable defense outside the 30-day preclusion rule.