April 28, 2017

Metro Health Prods., Inc. v Nationwide Ins. (2017 NY Slip Op 50607(U))

https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/metro-health-prods-inc-v-nationwide-ins-2017-ny-slip-op-50607u/

Court: Appellate Term, Second Department
Decided: April 28, 2017
Citation: 2017 NY Slip Op 50607(U)
Posture: Summary judgment
Outcome: Insurer prevailed
Later treatment: Followed in 2 later decisions (see Cited by)
Issues: Declaratory judgment, res judicata
Legal questions: Effect of insurer's declaratory judgment (see the maps)

Cite as

Metro Health Prods., Inc. v Nationwide Ins., 2017 NY Slip Op 50607(U) (App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2017)

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 action was barred by res judicata because a default declaratory judgment established the insurer's nonliability for the same claims. After the provider commenced its no-fault action, the insurer obtained a default judgment in Supreme Court declaring no obligation to pay claims arising from the accident because of the provider's EUO nonappearance. The provider disputed identity of issues. The Appellate Term, Second Department, concluded that a recovery in the pending action would destroy or impair rights established by the declaration under Schuylkill Fuel Corp. v Nieberg Realty Corp. It affirmed summary judgment dismissing the complaint for the insurer; arguments first raised on appeal were unpreserved and not considered.

Reported in New York Official Reports at Metro Health Prods., Inc. v Nationwide Ins. (2017 NY Slip Op 50607(U))

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

Metro Health Products, Inc., as Assignee of Jose Camargo, Appellant,
against
Nationwide Ins., Respondent.

The Rybak Firm, PLLC (Damin J. Toell, Esq.), for appellant. McCormack & Mattei, P.C. (Florina Amlakh, Esq.), for respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Katherine A. Levine, J.), entered May 12, 2015. The order granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

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

Plaintiff commenced this action on January 25, 2012 to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits for medical supplies provided to its assignor, who had allegedly sustained injuries in a motor vehicle accident on May 28, 2011. Defendant served its answer on February 12, 2012. On July 27, 2012, defendant commenced a declaratory judgment action in the Supreme Court, Nassau County, against plaintiff herein, seeking a declaration that defendant was under no obligation to pay any of plaintiff’s claims arising from the accident at issue, since plaintiff had failed to comply with a condition precedent to reimbursement of first-party no-fault benefits by failing to appear for duly scheduled examinations under oath. Plaintiff did not appear or serve an answer in the Supreme Court declaratory judgment action. By judgment entered January 28, 2013, the Supreme Court granted defendant a declaratory judgment on default, and, on April 1, 2013, the default judgment was served with notice of entry on plaintiff. On January 9, 2014, defendant moved in the Civil Court for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that plaintiff’s action is barred by virtue of the declaratory judgment. In opposition, plaintiff argued that there is no preclusive effect from the declaratory judgment because there is no identity of issues between the present action and the declaratory judgment action. By order [*2]entered May 12, 2015, the Civil Court granted defendant’s motion.

In light of the Supreme Court’s declaratory judgment, the Civil Court properly granted defendant’s motion under the doctrine of res judicata (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]). We note that those issues that plaintiff raises for the first time on appeal are unpreserved for appellate review and have not been considered by this court (see Gulf Ins. Co. v Kanen, 13 AD3d 579 [2004]).

Accordingly, the order is affirmed.

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

Decision Date: April 28, 2017

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 provider's action barred by res judicata because a default Supreme Court declaratory judgment, entered after the action began, declared the insurer owed nothing on claims from the accident.

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.

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))The provider's no-fault action was barred by res judicata because a default declaratory judgment denied its right to benefits.

Cited by

A label shows how the later decision treated this one.

Tandingan PT PC v State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. (2021 NY Slip Op 50869(U)) FollowedThree provider claims were barred by a declaratory judgment, and the insurer proved fee schedule payment of the fourth.
Columbus Imaging Ctr. v Country Wide Ins. Co. (2021 NY Slip Op 50851(U)) FollowedThe provider's action was barred by an unvacated default declaratory judgment establishing that the insurer owed no no-fault benefits.
Dos Manos Chiropractic, P.C. v State Farm Ins. Co. (2022 NY Slip Op 50995(U))An unvacated default declaratory judgment precludes a provider's benefits action involving the same parties and accident under res judicata.

Similar decisions

Metropolitan Diagnostic Med. Care, P.C. v American Commerce Ins. Co. (2016 NY Slip Op 50216(U))The provider's no-fault action was barred by res judicata following a default declaratory judgment denying coverage for the same claims.
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.
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.
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.
Daily Med. Equip. Distrib. Ctr., Inc. v American Tr. Ins. Co. (2015 NY Slip Op 51897(U))A declaratory judgment denying a provider's accident-related no-fault entitlement has preclusive effect even if entered on default.