January 12, 2018

Greenway Med. Supply Corp. v American Tr. Ins. Co. (2018 NY Slip Op 50039(U))

https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/greenway-med-supply-corp-v-american-tr-ins-co-2018-ny-slip-op50039u/

Court: Appellate Term, Second Department
Decided: January 12, 2018
Citation: 2018 NY Slip Op 50039(U)
Posture: Summary judgment
Outcome: Insurer prevailed
Issues: Declaratory judgment, res judicata Discovery and procedure
Legal questions: Effect of insurer's declaratory judgment (see the maps)

Cite as

Greenway Med. Supply Corp. v American Tr. Ins. Co., 2018 NY Slip Op 50039(U) (App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2018)

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.

A default declaratory order that has not been vacated may bar a provider's no-fault action under res judicata. The insurer relied on an order declaring no obligation to reimburse the provider or assignor. That order misstated the accident date and was vacated and replaced by a corrected order, submitted with the insurer's reply. The Appellate Term, Second Department, held that the original order had no preclusive effect, but judicial notice could be taken of the replacement as a public record. The corrected default order was a conclusive final determination, and recovery would impair the rights it established. The court affirmed insurer summary judgment dismissing the complaint and denial of the provider's motion as academic.

Reported in New York Official Reports at Greenway Med. Supply Corp. v American Tr. Ins. Co. (2018 NY Slip Op 50039(U))

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

Greenway Medical Supply Corp., as Assignee of Pittman Shameeka, Appellant,
against
American Transit Ins. Co., Respondent.

The Rybak Firm, PLLC (Damin J. Toell, Esq.), for appellant. Law Office of Daniel J. Tucker, for respondent (no brief filed).

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Richard Montelione, J.), entered October 8, 2015. The order granted defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and denied, as academic, plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with $25 costs.

In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits arising out of an accident which occurred on April 19, 2010, plaintiff moved for summary judgment. Defendant cross-moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the action is barred by the doctrine of res judicata, in that, by order entered April 3, 2013 on default, the Supreme Court, New York County, found that defendant is not obligated to honor or pay claims for reimbursement to the assignor and provider herein, among others, which had no rights “with respect to the April 20 [sic], 2010 alleged accident.” Plaintiff opposed defendant’s cross motion solely on the ground that the Supreme Court’s order had no collateral estoppel effect, as it had been entered on default. In reply papers, defendant proffered a subsequent order of the Supreme Court, dated April 2, 2015, which “vacated, resettled and corrected” the April 3, 2013 order to indicate that the date of the accident at issue was April 19, 2010. By order entered October 8, 2015, the Civil Court granted defendant’s cross motion based on res judicata and denied plaintiff’s motion as academic. Plaintiff argues, for the first time on appeal, that the April [*2]3, 2013 Supreme Court order has no preclusive effect because it applies to an accident on April 20, 2010, whereas the accident at issue in this case occurred on April 19, 2010. Plaintiff further argues that the “revised” April 2, 2015 order should not be considered as it was first submitted in reply papers.

The April 3, 2013 Supreme Court order did not have res judicata effect, as that order was vacated by the April 2, 2015 order. However, the April 2, 2015 order, which was attached to defendant’s reply papers, replaced the April 3, 2013 order and set forth the correct accident date of April 19, 2010, and a court “may, in general, take judicial notice of matters of public record” (Headley v New York City Tr. Auth., 100 AD3d 700, 701 [2012]). Furthermore, contrary to plaintiff’s contention, the April 2, 2015 Supreme Court order is a conclusive final determination, notwithstanding that it was entered on default, and res judicata applies to an order 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]; 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]).

Accordingly, we do not disturb the Civil Court’s order granting defendant’s cross motion (see EBM Med. Health Care, P.C. v Republic W. Ins., 38 Misc 3d 1 [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2012]), as any judgment in favor of plaintiff in the present action would destroy or impair rights or interests established by the judgment in the declaratory judgment action (see Schuylkill Fuel Corp. v Nieberg Realty Corp., 250 NY 304, 306-307 [1929]; Flushing Traditional Acupuncture, P.C. v Kemper Ins. Co., 42 Misc 3d 133[A], 2014 NY Slip Op 50052[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2014]).

Accordingly, the order is affirmed.

ELLIOT, J.P., PESCE and ALIOTTA, JJ., concur.

ENTER:
Paul Kenny
Chief Clerk
Decision Date: January 12, 2018

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 resettled default Supreme Court order, judicially noticed though first offered in reply, correctly covered the accident date and was a conclusive final determination despite the default.

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

Of the 164 decisions on this question in the Second Department courts and the Court of Appeals, 101 (this one included) are in the same category.

Cited in this decision

A label shows how this decision treated the case it cites.

Ava Acupuncture, P.C. v NY Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. (2012 NY Slip Op 50233(U)) FollowedAn unvacated default declaratory order barring no-fault benefits is a final determination that can preclude a provider's action under res judicata.
EBM Med. Health Care, P.C. v Republic W. Ins. (2012 NY Slip Op 22300) FollowedAn unvacated default declaratory judgment has res judicata effect in a provider's pending no-fault action.
Flushing Traditional Acupuncture, P.C. v Kemper Ins. Co. (2014 NY Slip Op 50052(U)) FollowedThe provider's no-fault action was barred by res judicata because a default declaratory judgment denied its right to benefits.

Similar decisions

Healthway Med. Care, P.C. v American Tr. Ins. Co. (2016 NY Slip Op 51786(U))The provider's claims were barred by res judicata because a prior declaration resolved coverage for the same accident between the same parties.
Active Care Med. Supply Corp. v American Commerce Ins. Co. (2016 NY Slip Op 51813(U))An unvacated default declaratory judgment order can bar a provider's no-fault action under res judicata without a notice of entry.
St. Mark’s Med. Health Care, PLLC v 21st Century Ins. Co. (2020 NY Slip Op 50851(U))An unvacated default declaratory judgment can bar a provider's later no-fault action under res judicata.
Vital Meridian Acupuncture, P.C. v American Tr. Ins. Co. (2016 NY Slip Op 51007(U))An unvacated default order declaring noncoverage is a conclusive final determination that can bar a provider's action under res judicata.
Best Touch PT, P.C. v American Tr. Ins. Co. (2015 NY Slip Op 51789(U))A default declaratory judgment barring no-fault payment is a conclusive final determination for res judicata purposes.