December 2, 2022

Medical Supply of NY Corp. v Nationwide Ins. Co. (2022 NY Slip Op 51253(U))

https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/medical-supply-of-ny-corp-v-nationwide-ins-co-2022-ny-slip-op51253u/

Court: Appellate Term, Second Department
Decided: December 2, 2022
Citation: 2022 NY Slip Op 51253(U)
Posture: Summary judgment
Outcome: Insurer prevailed
Later treatment: Contrasted (cf., but see) in 1 later decision (see Cited by)
Issues: Declaratory judgment, res judicata
Legal questions: Effect of insurer's declaratory judgment (see the maps)

Cite as

Medical Supply of NY Corp. v Nationwide Ins. Co., 2022 NY Slip Op 51253(U) (App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2022)

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 provider's claims were barred by res judicata because the insurer established that they concerned the accident covered by a prior declaration. The Appellate Term, Second Department, reversed the order and granted the insurer's motion for, in effect, summary judgment dismissing the complaint. A prior unopposed summary judgment order in the Supreme Court, Onondaga County, declared no reimbursement obligation to the provider for the August 22, 2018 accident under the same claim number. The provider's complaint alleged an August 24, 2018 accident, but all documentary evidence created by persons with personal knowledge identified August 22. The complaint's contrary allegation lacked personal knowledge and did not raise a factual issue concerning whether the claims arose from the same transaction.

Reported in New York Official Reports at Medical Supply of NY Corp. v Nationwide Ins. Co. (2022 NY Slip Op 51253(U))

SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 2d, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS

Medical Supply of NY Corp., as Assignee of Joseph Chatman, Respondent,
against
Nationwide Ins. Co., Appellant.

Hollander Legal Group, P.C. (Allan S. Hollander of counsel), for appellant. Kopelevich & Feldsherova, P.C. (David Landfair of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Sandra E. Roper, J.), dated January 18, 2022. The order denied defendant’s motion for, in effect, summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

ORDERED that the order is reversed, with $30 costs, and defendant’s motion for, in effect, summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted.

Plaintiff (Medical Supply) commenced this action to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, under claim number 757285-GH, for medical services that it had provided to its assignor as a result of injuries which, the complaint stated, had been sustained in an automobile accident on August 24, 2018. After Medical Supply commenced this action, defendant (Nationwide) answered and, separately, commenced a declaratory judgment action in the Supreme Court, Onondaga County, against Medical Supply, alleging that Nationwide had no duty to pay no-fault benefits to Medical Supply under claim number 757285-GH with respect to an accident which had occurred on August 22, 2018. In an order entered on March 9, 2020, the Supreme Court, upon Medical Supply’s default in appearance in the action, granted an unopposed motion by Nationwide for summary judgment, declaring that Nationwide was not obligated to provide coverage or reimbursements for any and all no-fault related services submitted by [*2]Medical Supply under claim number 757285-GH, with date of loss August 22, 2018.

Nationwide, thereafter, moved in the Civil Court for, in effect, summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the instant action is barred by virtue of the order in the declaratory judgment action. The Civil Court, in an order entered on January 18, 2022, denied Nationwide’s motion, finding that an issue of fact exists as to when the accident occurred.

Res judicata, or claim preclusion, is invoked when a party seeks to relitigate a disposition on the merits of claims, or causes of action, arising out of the same transaction or series of transactions which were raised or could have been raised in a prior proceeding between the same parties or those in privity (see Matter of Hunter, 4 NY3d 260, 269 [2005]; Schuylkill Fuel Corp. v Nieberg Realty Corp., 250 NY 304 [1929]; see also Watts v Swiss Bank Corp., 27 NY2d 270 [1970]).

Nationwide established, prima facie, that Medical Supply sought in this action to recover for medical supplies furnished to its assignor as a result of injuries allegedly sustained by its assignor in the August 22, 2018 accident that was the subject of the Supreme Court declaratory judgment action. All of the documentary evidence created by persons with personal knowledge of the accident alleged that the accident occurred on August 22, 2018. Medical Supply’s only evidence that the accident occurred on August 24, 2018 was the allegation in its own complaint, which was not based upon personal knowledge and which contradicts the documents created and executed by the assignor himself, the assignor’s counsel’s letter of representation, and the police accident report. Therefore, Medical Supply’s opposition was wholly insufficient to rebut Nationwide’s prima facie showing. Consequently, the instant action is barred by res judicata.

Accordingly, the order is reversed and defendant’s motion for, in effect, summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted.

ALIOTTA, P.J., TOUSSAINT and BUGGS, JJ., concur.

ENTER:
Paul Kenny
Chief Clerk
Decision Date: December 2, 2022

Legal questions

A question of no-fault law this decision rules on, from our Legal Questions pages. Bars count the decisions on the question by year and court, coloured by category; circles are this decision and the decisions on the question it cites or that cite it. Point at a bar or circle for details. The categories and summaries are Beynenson Law’s classification, made by a language model and checked by a second reading.

Effect of insurer's declaratory judgment

Open the full map

Does an insurer’s no-coverage declaratory judgment, or pending declaratory action, bar or stay a no-fault claimant’s action?

This decision: The DJ is given preclusive effect and bars every claim in the action that the court considered

Held the action barred by res judicata because the default declaratory judgment covered the same claim number and accident; the complaint's different accident date, unsupported by personal knowledge, did not rebut documents showing the same accident.

Barred by DJBarred in partNot bound: partiesDJ does not reachStayed pending DJStay deniedThis decisionCites it or cited by itDistinguished or limited

Of the 163 decisions on this question in the Second Department courts and the Court of Appeals, 100 (this one included) are in the same category.

Cited by

A label shows how the later decision treated this one.

Trapezius Diagnostic Chiropractic, P.C. v Adirondack Ins. Exch. (2025 NY Slip Op 50173(U)) Contrasted (cf., but see)The insurer failed to establish preclusion because the provider's complaint and the declaratory judgment identified different accident dates.

Similar decisions

Allay Med. Servs., P.C. v Nationwide Ins. (2021 NY Slip Op 50086(U))The provider's action was barred by res judicata because the prior declaratory judgment covered the same claim and accident.
Metro Health Prods., Inc. v Nationwide Ins. (2016 NY Slip Op 51122(U))An unpleaded res judicata defense may support summary judgment when it causes no surprise or prejudice to the opposing party.
AB Quality Health Supply Corp. v Nationwide Ins. (2022 NY Slip Op 50558(U))The insurer established timely mailing of EUO scheduling letters and the assignor's failure to appear, warranting dismissal.
JSJ Anesthesia Pain Mgt., PLLC v Nationwide Ins. Co. (2024 NY Slip Op 50203(U))The insurer failed to prove policy exhaustion because its claim specialist did not lay a sufficient foundation for the payment log.
Nationwide Affinity Ins. Co. of Am. v Jamaica Wellness Med., P.C. (2020 NY Slip Op 00971)The insurers' successive summary judgment motion was entertained because an intervening appeal clarified the proof required for EUO nonappearance.