November 12, 2026

Government Empls. Ins. Co. v Mauro Forward Chiropractic, P.C. (2026 NY Slip Op 06697)

https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/government-empls-ins-co-v-mauro-forward-chiropractic-p-c-2026-ny-slip-op-06697/

Court: Appellate Division, Second Department
Decided: November 12, 2026
Citation: 2026 NY Slip Op 06697
Posture: Default or vacatur
Outcome: Provider prevailed
Issues: Jurisdiction and service Defaults and vacatur

Cite as

Government Empls. Ins. Co. v Mauro Forward Chiropractic, P.C., 2026 NY Slip Op 06697 (2d Dept 2026)

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 rebutted the presumption of proper service through its owner's affidavit and established entitlement to a hearing. The insurer had obtained a default judgment declaring no obligation to reimburse certain no-fault medical payments. The Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed the order denying vacatur and dismissal and remitted for a service hearing and a new determination under CPLR 5015 (a) (4) and CPLR 3211 (a) (8). The owner's specific factual assertions rebutted the process server's prima facie showing under CPLR 311 (a) (1). The jurisdictional objection required resolution before discretionary vacatur under CPLR 5015 (a) (1); the provider's remaining contentions were not reached.

Reported in New York Official Reports at Government Empls. Ins. Co. v Mauro Forward Chiropractic, P.C. (2026 NY Slip Op 06697)

Government Empls. Ins. Co. v Mauro Forward Chiropractic, P.C.

2026 NY Slip Op 06697

Decided on November 12, 2026

Appellate Division, Second Department

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This decision is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Government Employees Insurance Co., et al., respondents,

Mauro Forward Chiropractic, P.C., appellant.

Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department

Decided on November 12, 2026

2025-07071, (Index No. 614097/23)

Colleen D. Duffy, J.P.

Betsy Barros

Barry E. Warhit

Lisa S. Ottley, JJ.

Law Office of Gregory A. Goodman, P.C., Jericho, NY (Gregory Goodman of counsel), for appellant.

Eileen Hopkins, Melville, NY (Michael R. Bluman of counsel), for respondents.

[*1]

DECISION & ORDER

In an action for a judgment declaring, inter alia, that the plaintiff is not obligated to reimburse certain no-fault medical payments, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Eileen C. Daly-Sapraicone, J.), dated March 20, 2025. The order denied the defendant’s motion, among other things, pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(4) to vacate a judgment of the same court entered August 1, 2024, upon its failure to appear or answer the complaint, and pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(8) to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction.

ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Nassau County, for a hearing to determine whether the defendant was properly served with process, and for a new determination thereafter of the defendant’s motion, inter alia, pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(4) to vacate the judgment and pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(8) to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction.

In August 2023, the plaintiff, a no-fault insurance carrier, commenced this action against the defendant for a judgment declaring, inter alia, that it was not obligated to reimburse certain no-fault medical payments submitted to it by the defendant. After the defendant failed to timely appear or answer the complaint, the plaintiff moved for leave to enter a default judgment. The Supreme Court granted the plaintiff’s unopposed motion. A judgment was entered on August 1, 2024, in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant.

In August 2024, the defendant moved, among other things, pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(4) to vacate the judgment and pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(8) to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction. The plaintiff opposed. In an order dated March 20, 2025, the Supreme Court denied the defendant’s motion. The defendant appeals.

“Where, as here, a defendant seeking to vacate a default judgment raises a jurisdictional objection pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(4), and seeks a discretionary vacatur pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(1), a court is required to resolve the jurisdictional question before determining whether it is appropriate to grant a discretionary vacatur of the default under CPLR 5015(a)(1)” (U.S. Bank N.A. v Warner 26, Inc.,247 AD3d 953, 954 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Wachovia Bank, N.A. v Greenberg, 138 AD3d 984, 985).

“A process server’s affidavit of service constitutes prima facie evidence of proper [*2]service” (Quicksilver Capital, LLC v Dixon Fin. Servs., LLC, 242 AD3d 916, 918 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Matter of Jest Holdings, LLC v Welz, 239 AD3d 746, 748). “To be entitled to vacatur of a default judgment under CPLR 5015(a)(4), a defendant must overcome the presumption raised by the process server’s affidavit of service” (Quicksilver Capital, LLC v Dixon Fin. Servs., LLC, 242 AD3d at 918 [internal quotation marks omitted]). “When a defendant submits a sworn denial of receipt of service containing specific facts to refute the statements in the affidavit of the process server, the prima facie showing is rebutted” (id. [alteration and internal quotation marks omitted]; see US Bank N.A. v Warner 26, Inc., 247 AD3d at 954).

Here, the process server’s affidavit of service constituted prima facie evidence of proper service, and as such, gave rise to a presumption of proper service pursuant to CPLR 311(a)(1) (see US Bank N.A. v Warner 26, Inc., 247 AD3d at 954; Chachere v Poulos, 234 AD3d 920, 921). However, the defendant demonstrated its entitlement to a hearing on the issue of service by submitting an affidavit of its owner which provided specific facts sufficient to rebut the presumption of proper service (see Chachere v Poulos, 234 AD3d at 922; Wachovia Bank, N.A. v Greenberg, 138 AD3d at 985).

Accordingly, we remit the matter to the Supreme Court, Nassau County, for a hearing to determine whether the defendant was properly served with process, and for a new determination thereafter of the defendant’s motion, inter alia, pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(4) to vacate the judgment and pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(8) to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction.

In light of our determination, we need not reach the defendant’s remaining contentions.

DUFFY, J.P., BARROS, WARHIT and OTTLEY, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Darrell M. Joseph

Clerk of the Court

Similar decisions

Great Health Care Chiropractic, P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (2020 NY Slip Op 50735(U))The provider failed to acquire personal jurisdiction because the record showed no signed acknowledgment of service by mail.
Pierre J. Renelique Physician, P.C. v Allstate Ins. Co. (2019 NY Slip Op 29225)The insurer failed to establish a reasonable excuse for default by citing the absence of a record of receiving process.
Domny Med. Servs., P.C. v First Acceptance Ins. Co., Inc. (2019 NY Slip Op 52048(U))The provider failed to establish personal jurisdiction because it supplied no signed acknowledgment of service under CPLR 312-a. The provider mailed the summons and complaint to an out-of-state insurer, which moved before answering to dismiss under CPLR 3211 (a) (8).
Medical Supply of NY Corp. v Berkshire Hathaway Homestate Ins. Co. (2025 NY Slip Op 50504(U))The insurer obtained default vacatur under CPLR 317 based on delayed actual notice and a potential workers' compensation defense.
Progressive Cas. Ins. Co. v Excel Prods., Inc. (2019 NY Slip Op 02569)The provider's conclusory denial of receiving process failed to support vacatur of the insurers' default declaratory judgment.