August 21, 2013

Eagle Surgical Supply, Inc. v AIG Ins. Co. (2013 NY Slip Op 51449(U))

https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/eagle-surgical-supply-inc-v-aig-ins-co-2013-ny-slip-op51449u/

Court: Appellate Term, Second Department
Decided: August 21, 2013
Citation: 2013 NY Slip Op 51449(U) · 40 Misc 3d 139(A)
Posture: Other motion
Outcome: Provider prevailed
Issues: Declaratory judgment, res judicata Defaults and vacatur
Legal questions: Effect of insurer's declaratory judgment (see the maps)

Cite as

Eagle Surgical Supply, Inc. v AIG Ins. Co., 40 Misc 3d 139(A), 2013 NY Slip Op 51449(U) (App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2013)

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 failed to show res judicata because its declaratory judgment did not include the accident underlying the provider's claim. After the provider obtained summary judgment for assigned no-fault benefits, the insurer secured a default declaration denying coverage for specified incidents based on EUO nonappearance. It then sought to vacate the Civil Court judgment under CPLR 5015 (a) (3), alleging assignor fraud and invoking res judicata. The declaration listed 28 incidents but omitted the accident at issue. The insurer therefore failed to establish that entry of the provider's judgment relitigated claims arising from the same transaction or series of transactions. The Appellate Term, Second Department, affirmed denial of the insurer's vacatur motion.

Reported in New York Official Reports at Eagle Surgical Supply, Inc. v AIG Ins. Co. (2013 NY Slip Op 51449(U))

[*1]

Eagle Surgical Supply, Inc. v AIG Ins. Co.

2013 NY Slip Op 51449(U) [40 Misc 3d 139(A)]

Decided on August 21, 2013

Appellate Term, Second Department

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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 August 21, 2013

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

PRESENT: : WESTON, J.P., RIOS and ALIOTTA, JJ
2012-482 K C.

Eagle Surgical Supply, Inc. as Assignee of FELISSAINT GISELAINE, Respondent, —
against
AIG Insurance Co., Appellant.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Dawn Jimenez Salta, J.), entered October 5, 2011. The order denied defendant’s motion to vacate a judgment.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs.

In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, plaintiff moved for summary judgment. In opposition to the motion, defendant argued, among other things, that plaintiff was not entitled to no-fault benefits because neither plaintiff nor its assignor had appeared for examinations under oath. By order dated September 29, 2008, the Civil Court granted plaintiff’s motion, finding that defendant had failed to rebut plaintiff’s prima facie case, and awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $502.63. Thereafter, on a date not disclosed in this record, defendant commenced an action in the Supreme Court, Nassau County, for a declaratory judgment against plaintiff, its assignor, and others. On June 3, 2010, the Supreme Court awarded defendant a default declaratory judgment which found, among other things, that since plaintiff and its assignor had “violated their respective obligation [sic] to appear for an examination under oath . . . [defendant] has no duty to defend or indemnify the [plaintiff and its assignor] . . . for any claims of personal injury, no-fault, UM or SUM benefits” for motor vehicle accidents occurring on specified dates. In 2011, a judgment was entered in favor of plaintiff in the Civil Court action. Defendant subsequently moved to vacate the Civil Court judgment, pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a) (3), due to “the fraud perpetrated by the assignor with respect to this claim.” Defendant also argued that the Civil Court must give full effect to the declaratory judgment based on res judicata. The Civil Court, by order entered October 5, 2011, denied defendant’s motion.

The doctrine of res judicata is designed to put an end to a matter once it is duly decided (see Siegel, NY Prac § 442, at 747 [4th ed]). Res judicata, or claim preclusion, is invoked when a party, or those in privity with the party, seek 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 the prior litigation (see Matter of Hunter, 4 NY3d 260, 269 [2005]; Schuylkill Fuel Corp. v Nieberg Realty Corp., 250 NY 304, 306-307 [1929]). The instant Civil [*2]Court action was commenced to recover no-fault benefits for services plaintiff had provided to its assignor for injuries the assignor had sustained in a motor vehicle accident on May 31, 2007. The declaratory judgment states that it applies to 28 incidents, and lists the dates of the incidents. However, May 31, 2007 is not included in the declaratory judgment action among the dates set forth therein. Therefore, defendant has not shown that plaintiff, by entering judgment in the Civil Court action, seeks to relitigate claims or causes of action arising out of the same transaction or series of transactions (see Matter of Hunter, 4 AD3d at 269).

Accordingly, the order is affirmed.

Weston, J.P., Rios and Aliotta, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: August 21, 2013

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: No preclusion because the DJ does not conclusively decide these claims or cannot operate on them

Held the default declaratory judgment did not warrant vacating the provider's judgment because the accident date at issue was not among the incident dates listed in the declaratory judgment.

Barred by DJBarred in partNot bound: partiesDJ does not reachStayed pending DJStay deniedThis decision

Of the 164 decisions on this question in the Second Department courts and the Court of Appeals, 27 (this one included) are in the same category.

Similar decisions

Eagle Surgical Supply, Inc. v AIG Indem. Ins. Co. (2013 NY Slip Op 51441(U))A discovery order precluding an insurer from offering trial evidence does not bar res judicata effect for a default declaratory judgment.
Eagle Surgical Supply, Inc. v Allstate Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. (2014 NY Slip Op 50411(U))The provider's challenges to the insurer's mailing affidavits were raised for the first time on appeal and were unpreserved.
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.
Eagle Surgical Supply, Inc. v Allstate Fire & Cas. Ins. Co. (2014 NY Slip Op 50464(U))The insurer failed to establish a timely denial based on EUO nonappearance because it did not prove when it received the claims.
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.