—[*1] Lawrence L. Kaye, P.C., Brooklyn, N.Y., for appellant.

Martin, Fallon & MullÉ, Huntington, N.Y. (Richard C. MullÉ of counsel), for respondent.

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 to vacate an arbitration award dated October 29, 2008, as modified December 1, 2008, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Cohen, J.), entered July 9, 2009, which, upon a decision of the same court dated May 13, 2009, denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the judgment is modified, on the law, by adding thereto a provision pursuant to CPLR 7511 (e) confirming the award dated October 29, 2008, as modified December 1, 2008; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed, with costs payable by the petitioner.

“Consistent with the public policy in favor of arbitration, the grounds specified in CPLR 7511 for vacating or modifying a no-fault arbitration award are few in number and narrowly applied” (Matter of Mercury Cas. Co. v Healthmakers Med. Group, P.C., 67 AD3d 1017, 1017 [2009]). “An arbitration award can be vacated by a court pursuant to CPLR 7511 (b) on only three narrow grounds: if it is clearly violative of a strong public policy, if it is totally or completely irrational, or if it manifestly exceeds a specific, enumerated limitation on the arbitrator’s power” (Matter of Erin Constr. & Dev. Co., Inc. v Meltzer, 58 AD3d 729, 729 [2009]; see Matter of United Fedn. of Teachers, Local 2, AFT, AFL-CIO v Board of Educ. of City School Dist. of City of N.Y., 1 NY3d 72, 79 [2003]; Matter of Board of Educ. of Arlington Cent. School Dist. v Arlington Teachers Assn., 78 NY2d 33, 37 [1991]; Cifuentes v Rose & Thistle, Ltd., 32 AD3d 816 [2006]; Matter of Rockland County Bd. of Coop. Educ. Servs. v BOCES Staff Assn., 308 AD2d 452, 453 [2003]). “An award is irrational if there is ‘no proof whatever to justify the award’ ” (Matter of Erin Constr. & Dev. Co., Inc. v Meltzer, 58 AD3d at 730, quoting Matter of Peckerman v D & D Assoc., 165 AD2d 289, 296 [1991]). “Even if the arbitrators misapply substantive rules of law or make an error of fact, unless one of the three narrow grounds applies in the particular case, the award will not be vacated” (Matter of Erin Constr. & Dev. Co., Inc. v Meltzer, 58 AD3d at 730; see Wien & Malkin LLP v Helmsley-Spear, Inc., 6 NY3d 471 [2006]; Matter of Silverman [Benmor Coats], 61 NY2d 299, 308 [1984]; Matter of Sprinzen [Nomberg], 46 NY2d 623, 629 [1979]; Cifuentes v Rose & Thistle, Ltd., 32 AD3d at 816). “An arbitrator is not bound by principles of substantive law or rules of evidence, and may do justice and apply his or her own sense of law and equity to the facts as he or she finds them to be” (Matter of Erin Constr. & Dev. Co., Inc. v Meltzer, 58 AD3d at 730; see Matter of Silverman [Benmor Coats], [*2]61 NY2d at 308).

Here, the petitioner failed to demonstrate the existence of any of the statutory grounds for vacating the arbitrator’s award. Contrary to the petitioner’s contention, the arbitrator’s award, as modified, finds evidentiary support in the record and was rationally based (see Matter of American Express Prop. Cas. Co. v Vinci, 63 AD3d 1055, 1055 [2009]; Matter of Mangano v United States Fire Ins. Co., 55 AD3d 916, 917 [2008]). In addition, even if the arbitrator failed to consider specified evidence, vacatur of the award would not be warranted (see Matter of American Express Prop. Cas. Co. v Vinci, 63 AD3d at 1056; see also Montanez v New York City Hous. Auth., 52 AD3d 338, 339 [2008]).

Upon denying a motion to vacate or modify an arbitration award, the court must confirm the award (see CPLR 7511 [e]; Matter of Mercury Cas. Co. v Healthmakers Med. Group, P.C., 67 AD3d at 1017-1018). Thus, given this Court’s affirmance of the Supreme Court’s denial of the petition to vacate or modify the award, the award must be confirmed (see CPLR 7511 [e]). Covello, J.P., Santucci, Angiolillo and Dickerson, JJ., concur.

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

APPELLATE TERM: 2nd, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Diane A. Lebedeff, J.), entered February 10, 2009, deemed, in part, from a judgment of the same court entered April 22, 2009 (see CPLR 5501 [c]). The judgment, entered pursuant to so much of the February 10, 2009 order as granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment to the extent of awarding plaintiff summary judgment on its first cause of action, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $85. The order, insofar as appealed from, denied so much of defendant’s cross motion as sought summary judgment dismissing plaintiff’s third cause of action.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed without costs; and it is further,

ORDERED that the order, insofar as appealed from, is reversed without costs and so much of defendant’s cross motion as sought summary judgment dismissing plaintiff’s third cause of action is granted.

In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, plaintiff moved for summary judgment and defendant cross-moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint or, in the alternative, for an order, pursuant to CPLR 3212 (g), finding that defendant had established the timely mailing of its denial of claim forms. Insofar as is relevant to this appeal, the Civil Court granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment to the extent of [*2]awarding plaintiff summary judgment on its first
cause of action and denied so much of defendant’s cross motion as sought summary judgment dismissing plaintiff’s third cause of action. Defendant’s appeal ensued. A judgment subsequently was entered upon the first cause of action. The appeal from the order is deemed, in part, to be taken from the judgment (see CPLR 5501 [c]).

On appeal, defendant’s sole contention with respect to plaintiff’s prima facie case is that the affidavit of plaintiff’s billing manager failed to establish that the documents annexed to plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment were admissible as business records. Upon our review of the record, we find that the affidavit was sufficient to establish that the documents annexed to plaintiff’s moving papers were admissible pursuant to CPLR 4518 (see Art of Healing Medicine, P.C. v Travelers Home & Mar. Ins. Co., 55 AD3d 644 [2008]; Dan Med., P.C. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 14 Misc 3d 44 [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2006]). The affidavit of defendant’s claims division employee, submitted in opposition to plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, failed to address plaintiff’s first cause of action. Accordingly, defendant failed to raise a triable issue of fact with regard to said cause of action, and the judgment is affirmed.

With respect to plaintiff’s third cause of action, defendant established that it had timely denied the claim at issue on the ground that the services provided were not medically necessary (see St. Vincent’s Hosp. of Richmond v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 50 AD3d 1123 [2008]; Residential Holding Corp. v Scottsdale Ins. Co., 286 AD2d 679 [2001]; Delta Diagnostic Radiology, P.C. v Chubb Group of Ins., 17 Misc 3d 16 [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2007]). In support of its cross motion for summary judgment, defendant submitted, among other things, an affirmed peer review report which set forth a factual basis and medical rationale for the opinion that there was a lack of medical necessity for the services for which payment was sought in the third cause of action (see Delta Diagnostic Radiology, P.C. v Integon Natl. Ins. Co., 24 Misc 3d 136[A], 2009 NY Slip Op 51502[U] [App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2009]; Delta Diagnostic Radiology, P.C. v American Tr. Ins. Co., 18 Misc 3d 128[A], 2007 NY Slip Op 52455[U] [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2007]; A. Khodadadi Radiology, P.C. v NY Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 16 Misc 3d 131[A], 2007 NY Slip Op 51342[U] [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2007]). Plaintiff failed to rebut defendant’s evidence of the lack of medical necessity for these services. Consequently, defendant established its prima facie entitlement to summary judgment with respect to plaintiff’s third cause of action, and plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact with respect to this cause of action. Accordingly, so much of defendant’s cross motion as sought summary judgment dismissing plaintiff’s third cause of action is granted.

Pesce, P.J., Weston and Steinhardt, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: May 10, 2010

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

APPELLATE TERM: 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS

Appeal from an amended order of the District Court of Nassau County, First District (Andrew M. Engel, J.), dated July 17, 2008. The amended order granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment.

ORDERED that the amended order is reversed without costs and plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is denied.

In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, plaintiff moved for summary judgment, and defendant opposed the motion on the ground that the services provided were not medically necessary. The District Court granted plaintiff’s motion, and this appeal ensued.

While defendant argues that the affidavit of plaintiff’s billing collection supervisor was insufficient to establish plaintiff’s prima facie case, we do not pass on the propriety of the determination of the District Court with respect thereto as defendant raises this issue for the first time on appeal (see Westchester Neurodiagnostic, P.C. v Allstate Ins. Co., 24 Misc 3d 133[A], 2009 NY Slip Op 51385[U] [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2009]; Nyack Hosp. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 21 Misc 3d 133[A], 2008 NY Slip Op 52184[U] [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2008]; Mary Immaculate Hosp. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 21 Misc 3d 130[A], 2008 NY Slip Op 52046[U] [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2008]). [*2]

In support of its motion, plaintiff submitted defendant’s affirmed peer review reports and argued that plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment because the peer review reports did not adequately set forth a medical justification to support the peer review doctor’s conclusions that the services at issue were not medically necessary. In opposition to plaintiff’s motion, defendant established that its denial of claim forms, which relied upon the peer review reports, were timely (see Residential Holding Corp. v Scottsdale Ins. Co., 286 AD2d 679 [2001]). Contrary to the conclusion of the District Court, we find that the peer review reports set forth a sufficient factual basis and medical rationale to demonstrate the existence of an issue of fact as to medical necessity (see B.Y., M.D., P.C. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 26 Misc 3d 135[A], 2010 NY Slip Op 50144[U] [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2010]; see also A.B. Med. Servs., PLLC v Country-Wide Ins. Co., 23 Misc 3d 140[A], 2009 NY Slip Op 51016[U] [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2009]). Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment should have been denied (see Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557 [1980]).

Tanenbaum, J.P., Molia and Iannacci, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: May 10, 2010

Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County

042765/08

Plaintiff:

Max Valerio, Esq.

Gary Tsirelman, P.C.

55 Washington Street, Suite 606

Brooklyn, New York 11201

Defendant:

Dominick Dale, Esq.

Law Offices of Teresa M. Spina

170 Froehlich Farm Boulevard

Woodbury, New York 11797

Pamela L. Fisher, J.

Plaintiff, Beal-Medea Products, Inc., assignee of Michael Perez, instituted this action to recover first party no-fault benefits from Defendant GEICO. A trial was held before this Court on March 29, 2010 and April 5, 2010. After considering and evaluating the trial evidence and upon weighing and assessing the credibility of the witnesses, the Court makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law.

The parties stipulated that Plaintiff established its prima facie case, that Defendant established timely denials, and that the sole issue for trial was medical necessity. The parties also stipulated to the admission of the bills and denials. It is Defendant’s burden at trial to show that the supplies provided to Plaintiff’s assignor were medically unnecessary. See Amaze Med. Supply, Inc. v. Eagle Ins. Co., 2003 NY Slip Op 51701U (NY App. Term 2003). To meet its burden, at a minimum, Defendant must establish a factual basis and medical rationale for its asserted lack of medical necessity, which is supported by evidence of the generally accepted medical/professional [*2]practices. See Nir v. Allstate Ins. Co., 2005 NY Slip Op 25090 (NY Civ. Ct. 2005).

At trial, Defendant called Dr. Michael Jacobs to testify regarding the peer review report of Dr. Andrew Miller. Plaintiff objected on hearsay grounds to Dr. Jacob’s testimony because he was not the author of the original peer report. The Court now turns to the question of whether it is permissible for a substitute doctor to testify.

The Appellate Term First and Second Department have held that a substitute peer doctor is permitted to testify as the witness is subject to full cross-examination, however they have limited the substitute peer’s testimony to the basis for denial as set forth in the original peer review report. Bronx Expert Radiology, P.C. v. New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 2009 NY Slip Op 51475U, 1 (NY App. Term 2009). See also Home Care Orthos. Med. Supply v. American Mfrs. Mut. Ins. Co., 14 Misc 3d 139(A) (2007); Spruce Med. and Diagnostic, P.C. v Lumbermen’s Mut. Cas. Co., 15 Misc 3d 143A(2007). Bronx Expert did not limit its holding to cases where documents are in evidence. When the parties have stipulated that either the peer report or the underlying medical records are admitted into evidence applying the Bronx Expert standard is clear. However when the parties have not stipulated documents into evidence the Court must determine to what extent may the witness rely on out-of-court documents without violating the hearsay rule. See Progressive Med., Inc. v Allstate Ins. Co., 2010 NY Slip Op 50219U (NY App. Term 2010).

In SK Med. Servs., P.C. v. New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 2006 NY Slip Op 26227, 1 (NY Civ. Ct. 2006), a lower court case decided before Bronx Expert, the parties stipulated that the peer report was in evidence and the court held that the substitute peer was permitted to testify. The substitute peer was limited to testifying to the facts and opinions contained in the peer review report. Id. The decision was based on the rationale that an insurer may not assert new grounds for its refusal to pay a claim and must adhere to the defense as stated in its denial. Id. Permitting a substitute peer to testify does not violate these principles as long as the substitute peer doctor is limited to the basis for the denial as set forth in the original peer report. Id. As the parties stipulated the peer into evidence, SK Medical did not address the evidentiary concerns associated with admitting the peer report or underlying medical records into evidence when a substitute peer testifies. When documents are not in evidence, the Plaintiff will inevitably object to the testimony of the peer or substitute peer on hearsay grounds. Bronx Expert does not expound upon hearsay concerns. Instead the case states that Defendant’s expert is not precluded from testifying because his opinion may have been based, at least in part, on his review of the assignor’s medical records prepared by plaintiff. See Bronx Expert.

In IAV Med. Supply, Inc. v Progressive Ins. Co., 2010 NY Slip Op 50433U, 5 (NY Civ. Ct. Mar. 15, 2010), the Court relied on the standard set forth in Bronx Expert, and held that a substitute peer doctor was permitted to testify when there were no documents in evidence because the witness would be subject to cross-examination and his testimony would be limited to the original peer review reports. IAV Medical allowed the testimony by relying on the fact that the peer reports had been submitted to the Plaintiff prior to trial as part of a summary judgment motion and expert disclosure, however the court did not address hearsay concerns.When the peer report and/or underlying medical records have not been stipulated into evidence, Defendant must overcome Plaintiff’s hearsay exception in order to elicit testimony from the expert witness. In this instance, the Court may rely on the framework laid by Wagman. Wagman v. Bradshaw, 292 AD2d 84, 85 (NY App. Div. 2d Dep’t 2002). In Wagman, the Appellate Division [*3]held that an expert witness may testify when he or she relied upon inadmissible out-of-court material to formulate an opinion provided: (1) it is of a kind accepted in the profession as reliable as a basis in forming a professional opinion, and (2) there is evidence presented establishing the reliability of the out-of-court material referred to by the witness. Id. See also Hambsch v New York City Tr. Auth., 63 NY2d 723); Supple Mind Acupuncture, P.C. v. State Farm Ins. Co., 2008 NY Slip Op 51856U (NY App. Term 2008). Under the purview of Wagman, it follows that a peer doctor as well as a substitute peer doctor would be permitted to testify as long as the witness is able to satisfy the two prong Wagman test. The testimony of the peer and substitute peer are deemed permissible because of an exception to the hearsay rule. Namely their testimony is deemed permissible when they have established the reliability of the out of court documents relied upon. It is a contradiction to permit the peer doctor to testify based on an exception to the hearsay rule and in turn prohibit a substitute peer from testifying. Both the peer and substitute peer are relying on out of court documents which fall under a hearsay exception. Generally, litigants can satisfy the first prong of Wagman, however establishing the second prong is more difficult.

Courts have held that Plaintiff invariably can not rebuff the reliability of the out of courts documents relied upon by an expert when the out of court documents consist of documents that plaintiff or assignor have prepared. See Andrew Carothers, M.D. (Martinez) v. GEICO, 2008 NY Slip Op 50456[U], 18 Misc 3d 1147[A], 859 NYS2d 892 (Civil Ct., Kings Co. 2008); Home Care Ortho. Med. Supply Inc., v. American MFRS. Mut. Ins. Co., 2007 NY Slip Op 50302[U], 14 Misc 3d 139[A], 836 NYS2d 499 (App. Term, 1st Dept. 2007); Primary Psychiatric Health, P.C., v. State Farm Mutual, 2007 NY Slip Op 50583[U], 15 Misc 3d 1111[A], 839 NYS2d 436 (Civil Ct., Kings Co. 2007). In Popular Imaging, P.C. v State Farm Ins. Co., 2009 NY Slip Op 52355U (NY Civ. Ct. 2009), a peer doctor was permitted to testify with respect to a peer report and underlying medical records which were not in evidence. The Court found that the peer doctor satisfied the Wagman two prong test for permitting expert testimony based upon out of court documents. Id. The Court held that a Plaintiff invariably can not rebuff the permissibility of the expert testimony on reliability grounds when those documents are Plaintiff’s or assignor’s documents.

In PLP Acupuncture, P.C. v. Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 2009 NY Slip Op 50491U, 1-2 (NY App. Term 2009), the Court permitted a substitute peer doctor to testify. The Court applied the Wagman test and held that the substitute peer could rely upon out of court documents in forming his opinion as long as the substitute peer offers proof of the reliability of the out of court documents. Id. The Court further held that as some of the medical reports relied upon by defendant’s acupuncturist in his peer review report were prepared by plaintiff, plaintiff could not challenge the reliability of its own medical records and reports. Id.

In Dilon Med. Supply Corp. v. New York Cent. Mut. Ins. Co., 2007 NY Slip Op 52454U, 2 (NY App. Term 2007), the Appellate Term reversed a lower court which precluded a substitute doctor from testifying. The Court held that since defendant sought to call a medical expert witness who was available for cross-examination, and his testimony as to the lack of medical necessity of plaintiff’s services would be limited to the basis for the denials as set forth in the original peer review reports, the expert witness should have been permitted to testify. Id.

Applying this standard to the case at hand, the Court will permit the substitute peer doctor to testify and limit his testimony to the basis for denial as set forth in the original peer review. Plaintiff objected to Dr. Jacob’s testimony based upon hearsay grounds. The Court of Appeals has [*4]held that an expert witness may testify that he or she relied upon specific, inadmissible out-of-court material to formulate an opinion provided: (1) it is of a kind accepted in the profession as reliable as a basis in forming a professional opinion and (2) there is evidence presented establishing the reliability of the out-of-court material referred to by the witness. See Wagman. Dr. Jacobs testified that the out-of-court documents he relied upon were professionally reliable, however he did not present evidence establishing the reliability of the out-of-court material. Therefore, Defendant failed to demonstrate either that the testimony did not rely on out-of-court documents for the truth of the matters stated herein, or that the documents were being relied upon for their truth but fell within an exception to the rule against hearsay. See Progressive Med., Inc. v Allstate Ins. Co., 2010 NY Slip Op 50219U (NY App. Term 2010). Accordingly, Dr. Jacobs’ testimony is stricken and the Court finds that Defendant did not establish a factual basis and medical rationale for its asserted lack of medical necessity.

Judgement in favor of Plaintiff in the amount of $563.04, plus costs, disbursements, statutory interest and statutory attorneys fees. This constitutes the decision and order of the Court.

May 6, 2010

Pamela L. Fisher

Judge, Civil Court

Nassau Dist Ct, First District

10218/09

Amos Weinberg, Esq. – Plaintiff

John E. McCormack, Esq. – Defendant

Fred J. Hirsh, J.

Defendant Progressive Insurance Company (“Progressive”) moves for an order compelling Valadimir Alexsandrovich (“Alexsandrovich”) to appear for a deposition and answer questions concerning Bener Wholesale (“Bener”) and to provide actual documented costs of material supplied, alternatively for an order dismissing this action on the grounds plaintiff has wilfully refused to comply with defendant’s discovery demands or alternatively an order precluding plaintiff from producing evidence at trial as a result of its wilful failure to comply with defendant’s discovery demands.

BACKGROUND

This action raises issues about the extent to which a defendant can obtain discovery on defenses a defendant may be precluded from raising at a trial of an action for seeking payment of first party no-fault benefits.

Alev Medical Supply, Inc. (“Alev”) is in the business providing medical equipment and supplies. Alev commenced this action seeking to obtain payment of first party no-fault benefits for medical supplies it provided to Jason Bailey (“Bailey”).

Defendant served a discovery demand dated May 19, 2009. The demand seeks, inter alia, information regarding the amounts paid by Alev to the supplier of the medical equipment for the equipment furnished to Bailey.

Defendant also served a demand for interrogatories and a demand to take a deposition of a representative of Alev.

Progressive asserts its has conducted an investigation and believes Alev is part of a scheme involving an entity known as Bener Wholesale, Inc. (“Bener”) devised to defraud insurance companies.

Progressive claims that Bener does not really exist. Progressive asserts Bener was formed to generate invoices for medical supplies and equipment so Alev and other providers of medical equipment could bill no-fault and other insurance carriers.

Progressive seeks discovery primarily on its assertion that Bener does not exist [*2]and has not been selling medical equipment to Alev.

Progressive has sent an investigator to the addresses listed on invoices it has obtained through verification and has discovered Bener does not maintain any offices or other facilities at those locations.

Progressive does not indicate whether it has ever sent an investigator to the address Bener listed in its Certificate of Incorporation as the address to which the Secretary of State should mail process made upon the Secretary of State as statutory agent for process for Bener.

Progressive is essentially raising defenses of fraud and bills not in accordance with the no-fault payment schedule.

DISCUSSION

The No-Fault Law provides the provider of medical services and/or supplies shall be paid the amount “…the charges permissible under the schedules prepared and established by the chairman of the workers’ compensation board for industrial accidents.” Insurance Law §5108(a). A provider of medical equipment is permitted to charge a no-fault insurance carrier 150% of the documented cost of the equipment to the provider. 11 NYCRR 68 Part E (b)(1).

Translated into this action, Alev would be permitted to bill Progressive and Progressive would be would required to pay Alev 150% of the amount Alev paid to Bener or any other wholesale supplier of medical equipment for the equipment it provided to Bailey. Therefore, the amount Alev paid to Bener or any other medical supplier would appear at first glance to be relevant to this action.

However, this is an action to obtain payment of first party no-fault benefits. Unless a no-fault carrier seeks verification [11 NYCRR 3.5], a no-fault insurance carrier has 30 days from the date of receipt of the claim to pay or deny a claim in whole or in part. 11 NYCRR 65-3.8. A no-fault insurance carrier who fails to deny a claim within 30 days of receipt is precluded from asserting most defenses to the claim. A no-fault insurance carrier is also precluded from asserting at the trial of an action any precludable defense not asserted in a timely denial. Fair Price Medical Supply Corp. v. Travelers Indemnity Co., 10 NY3d 556 (2008); and Hospital for Joint Diseases v. Travelers Property Casualty Ins. Co., 9 NY3d 312 (2007); and Presbyterian Hosp. in City of NY v. Maryland Cas. Co., 90 NY2d 274, rearg. denied 90 NY2d 937 (1997).^[FN1] Fraud and charges not in accordance with the worker’s compensation fee schedule are [*3]defenses the carrier is precluded from asserting unless raised in a timely served denial. Fair Price Medical Supply Corp. v. Travelers Indemnity Co., supra; New York Hosp. Medical Center of Queens v. Country-Wide Ins. Co., 295 AD2d 583 (2nd Dept. 2002); Davydov v. Progressive Ins. Co., 25 Misc 3d 19 (App. Term 2nd & 11th Jud. Dist. 2009); and Lincoln General Ins. Co. v. Alev Medical Supply Inc., 25 Misc 3d 1019 (Dist. Ct. Nassau Co. 2009).

If Progressive did not deny the claim submitted by Alev on the grounds of fraud or charges not in accordance with the no-fault schedule in a timely denial, Progressive is precluded from raising those defenses at trial.

The no-fault regulations provide an insurance carrier with the ability to investigate a claim prior to paying or denying the claim by demanding written verification [11 NYCRR 65 – 3.5] and/or an examination under oath [11 NYCRR 65-1.1]. The insurance carrier’s time to pay or deny a claim is extended by making a timely demand for verification. Infinity Health Products, Ltd. v. Eveready Ins. Co., 67 AD3d 862 (2nd Dept. 2009). A claim does not have to be paid or denied until the insurance carrier has been provided with all timely demanded verification. Mount Sinai Hosp. v. Chubb Group of Insurance Companies, 43 AD3d 899 (2nd Dept. 2007); and New York & Presbyterian Hosp. v. Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 5 AD3d 569 (2nd Dept. 2004).

The entire purpose of the verification process is to provide the insurance carrier with the opportunity to seek additional information and time to review a claim before the carrier is required to pay or deny the claim. Fair Price Medical Supply Corp. v. Travelers Indemnity Co., supra.

CPLR 3101(a) provides for full disclosure by a party to an action of “… all matter material and necessary in the prosecution or defense of an action regardless of the burden of proof.”

Material demanded in discovery is “material and relevant” for the purposes of CPLR 3101(a) if the demanded matter, “…will assist preparation for trial by sharpening the issues and reducing delay and prolixity. The test is one of usefulness and reason.” Allen v. Crowell-Collier Publishing Co., 21 NY2d 403, 406 (1968). The demanded material must be produced if it can be used as evidence in chief, for rebuttal or for cross-examination. Allen v. Crowell-Collier Publishing Co., Id.; and Wind v. Eli Lilly & Co., 164 AD2d 885 (2nd Dept. 1990).

The party demanding discovery has the burden of establishing the production of the demanded material will lead to the discovery of evidence relevant to the action. Crazytown Furniture, Inc. v. Brooklyn Union Gas Co., 150 AD2d 420 (2nd Dept. 1989); Carp v. Marcus, 116 AD2d 854 (3rd Dept., 1986); and Herbst v. Bruhn, 106 AD2d 546 (2nd Dept., 1984).

To determine whether Progressive is permitted discovery on the issue of fraud or billing in excess of the amount permitted by the no-fault law and regulation, the court must know whether the claim was timely denied and the basis for the denial. If the claim made by Alev was not denied on the grounds of fraud or billing in excess of the amount permitted by the no-fault law and regulations, Progressive is precluded from raising those defenses at trial. Discovery cannot be obtained regarding matters that will not be in issue at trial. Since the defendant has not provided the court with copies of either the claims or the denials, the court cannot determine on the present record [*4]whether the material defendant seeks is subject to discovery.

Furthermore, the court believes Progressive is seeking discovery that cannot be obtained in the manner demanded. Progressive is seeking discovery from a party regarding a non-party. Bener is not a party to this action.

CPLR 3101(a)(4) permits a party to an action to obtain disclosure from a non- party “…upon notice stating the circumstances or reasons such disclosure is sought or required.”CPLR 3120 permits a party to an action to obtain discovery of documents from a non-party upon service of a notice to produce and a subpoena duces tecum.

The party seeking a deposition of a non-party must demonstrate special circumstances. Brooklyn Floor Maintenance Co. v. Providence Washington Ins. Co., 296 AD2d 520 (2nd Dept. 2002); and CPLR 3101(a)(4).

The motion specifically seeks the deposition of Valadimir Alexsandrovich to answer questions regarding Bener. The court cannot order a person who has not been subpoenaed to appear and give testimony regarding a non-party. If Progressive wants to obtain discovery from Bener, it must do so through subpoena.

Finally, the court notes many of the questions posed in the interrogatories relate to a Malella defense.^[FN2] CPLR 3018(b) requires a party to plead all matters that would likely take an adverse party by surprise or that would not appear on the face of the pleading. A Malella defense must be plead as an affirmative defense. New York First Acupuncture P.C. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 25 Misc 3d 134(A) (App Term2nd, 11th & 13th Jud. Dists. 2009). The answer does not plead a Malella defense in its answer.

Malella does not apply to the claim asserted in this action. The principle underlying Malella is that only a licensed professional can be officer, shareholder or director of a professional corporation, a partner in a professional limited liability partnership or a manager of a professional limited liability company. The “fraudulent incorporation” element of Malella is that a non-professional has the actual ownership or controlling interest in such a business entity that only a licensed professional can own.

Alev is the provider of medical supplies. Defendant has failed to establish that the owner of a medical supply company must have a license. In fact, it would appear to the contrary since Alev is a domestic, business corporation.

Thus, to the extent defendant seeks material that cannot be in issue in this litigation, the discover demands are palpably improper. Saratoga Harness Racing, Inc. v. Roemer, 274 AD2d 887 (3rd Dept. 2000); and Titleserv, Inc. v. Zenobio, 210 AD2d 314 (2nd Dept. 2000); and Grossman v. Lacoff, 168 AD2d 484 (2nd Dept.,1990).

The no-fault law is designed to insure prompt payment of claims of medical claims arising from automobile accidents. Medical Society of the State of New York v. Serio, 100 NY2d 854, 860 (2003). See, Fair Price Medical Supply Corp. v. Travelers Indemnity Co., supra; and Hospital for Joint Disease v. Travelers Property Casualty Ins. Co., supra.

Permitting a defendant to conduct discovery on defenses it is precluded from raising at [*5]trial would defeat this goal.

Therefore, defendant’s motion is denied with leave to renew upon proper papers including a copy of the claim and a copy of the denial.

SO ORDERED:

Hon. Fred J. Hirsh

District Court Judge

Dated: May 3, 2010

Footnotes

Footnote 1:There are four defenses a carrier can raise that are not subject to the preclusion rule: (1) fraudulent incorporation, [State Farm Mutual Ins. Co. v. Malella, 4 NY3d 313 (2005)], (2) lack of coverage, [Central General Hosp. v. Chubb Group of Ins. Cos., 90 NY2d 195 (1997)], (3) staged accident [Central General Hosp. v. Chubb Group of Ins. Cos., supra; Allstate Ins. Co. v. Massre, 14 AD3d 610 (2nd Dept. 2005); and V.S. Medical Services P.C. v. Allstate Ins. Co., 11 Misc 3d 334 (Civil Ct. Kings Co. 2006)] and (4) exhaustion of coverage [Hospital for Joint Disease v. Hertz Corp., 22 AD3d 724 (2nd Dept.2005); and Hospital for Joint Disease v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 8 AD3d 533 (2nd Dept. 2004)].

Footnote 2:The names of the shareholders and owners in a management company and the services provided by the management company are Mallela issues.

Civil Court of the City of New York, Richmond County

08R014639

A P P E A R A N C E S:

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

Baker, Sanders, Barshay, Grossman, Fass, Muhlstock & Neuwirth

150 Herricks Road

Mineola, NY 11501

Attorneys for Defendant:

Peter C. Merani, P.C.

298 Fifth Avenue, 3rd Floor

New York, NY 10001

Katherine A. Levine, J.

Plaintiff Anthony Mandracchia, D.C. (“plaintiff”), a medical service provider, brings this action pursuant to Insurance Law § 5106(a) to recover $320.30 for services it provided to its assignor, Dwayne Loftin (“assignor”), for injuries he allegedly sustained in an automobile accident. Defendant Allstate Insurance Co. (“defendant”) moves to dismiss pursuant to CPLR § 3211 or, in the alternative, for summary judgment pursuant to CPLR § 3212 on the grounds that the instant action is barred by the six (6) year Statute of Limitation. Plaintiff opposes the motion.

Pursuant to Insurance Law § 5106, a complete proof of claim is a prerequisite to receiving no-fault benefits. Under the old regulations applicable to insurance policies issued before April 5, 2002, the written proof of claim must be submitted to the insurance company “as soon as reasonably practicable, but in no event later than 180 days after the date services are rendered or 180 days after the date written notice was given to the insurer. 11 NYCRR 65.12. See Rockman v. Clarendon, 2008 NY Slip Op 52093 (U), 21 Misc 3d 1118(A) (Civil Ct., Richmond Co. 2008) citing Montefiore Medical Center v. Mary Immaculate Hospital, 9 AD3d 354 (2d Dept. 2004). Within 30 days of receiving the claim, an insurer shall either pay or deny the claim in whole or in part. See 11 NYCRR 65.15(g)(3). In the event an insurer fails to timely deny a claim or request verification from the provider, the insurer is precluded from asserting that the claim was untimely or incomplete. Presbyterian Hosp. In City of NY v. Maryland Cas. Co., 90 NY2d 274, 282 (1997); Montefiore Medical Center v. NY Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 9 AD3d 354, 355 (2d Dept. 2004); NY Hosp. Med. Ctr. Of Queens v. Country-Wide Ins. Co., 295 AD2d 583 (2d Dept. 2002).

An action to recover first party benefits owed under an insurance policy is viewed as a breach of contract governed by the six year statute of limitations contained in CPLR 213(2). Alleviation Supplies, Inc. v Enterprise Rent-A-Car, 12 Misc 3d 787, 791 (Civil Ct., Richmond Co. 2006). See, Benson v. Boston Old Colony, 134 AD2d 214, 215 (1st Dept. 1987); Spring World Acupuncture, PC. V. NYC Transit Authority ., 24 Misc 3d 39 (2009). In contract cases, the cause of action accrues ,and the statute of limitations begins to run at the time of the breach.Micha v. Merchants Mutual Ins. Co., 94 AD2d 835, 836 ( 2d Dept. 1983). [*2]

In no fault actions, a defendant insurer’s contractual obligation to pay the first party benefits arises after it receives the claim. As set forth above, pursuant to Insurance Law §5106, an insurer must either pay or deny the claim within 30 days of submission of proof or the bill becomes overdue. The cause of action thus accrues once the claim is overdue. In Line Chiropractic v. MVAIC, 2005 NY Slip Op 50275U, 6 Misc 3d 1032A (Civil Ct, Bronx Co. 2005), and the statute of limitations thus commences either upon the denial of the claim or, if the thirty days after the submission of plaintiff’s proof of claim. Mandarino v. Travelers Prop. Cas. Ins. Co., 37 AD3d 775 (2nd Dept. 2007); Micha v. Merchants Mut. Ins. Co., 94 AD2d 835, 836 (3d Dept. 1983), citing Insurance Law 675(1); Chester Medical Diagnostic v. Kemper Casualty Ins. Co., 2008 NY Slip Op. 52009(U), 21 Misc 3d 1108(A) (Civil Ct., Kings Co. 2008).

On a motion to dismiss a cause of action pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(5) on the ground that it is time-barred, the defendant bears the initial burden of establishing, prima facie, that the time in which to sue has expired. Cimino v. Dembeck,61 AD3d 802 (2d Dept. 2009). See, Swift v New York Med. Coll., 25 AD3d 686, 687 ( 2d Dept. 2006). “In order to make a prima facie showing, the defendant must establish, inter alia, when the plaintiff’s cause of action accrued” (Swift v New York Med. Coll., 25 AD3d at 687). Furthermore, in deciding a CPLR 3211 motion to dismiss, “a court must take the allegations in the complaint as true and resolve all inferences ] in favor of the plaintiff” Cimino, supra, (Sabadie v Burke, 47 AD3d 913, 914,(2d Dept. 2008).

On a motion for summary judgment, a court may consider evidence contained in documents supplied by a party to the court. See Kwiecinski v. Chung Hwang, 2009 NY Slip Op 06630, 2009 NY App. Div. LEXIS 6503 (3d Dept. 2009); Sonnenfeldt v. Kyriakoudes, 226 AD2d 286 (1 Dept. 1996) citing Central Petroleum Corp. v. Kyriakoudes, 121 AD2d 165 (1st Dept. 1986). A court may utilize these admissions as evidence upon which it can make findings of fact. Potamkin Cadillac Corp. v. BRI Coverage Corp., 38 F3d 627 (2d Cir. 1994); Freemantle v. U.S. Hoffman Machinery Corp., 2 AD2d 634 (3d Dept. 1956)(statements in answers to interrogatories or in proposed findings of fact are admissions against the party that made them); Bertha Building Corp. v. National Theatres Corp., 248 F.2d 833, 836 (1957).

Plaintiff has annexed to its complaint a ledger providing the particulars of the assignor’s bill, including the date of accident and the date of service of August 25, 1998. The complaint avers that “the bill was received timely”; i.e. that plaintiff submitted the bill to Allstate within 180 days. The complaint also avers that more than 30 days have passed since the bill was submitted and that defendant failed to properly deny the bill within 30 days of receipt. Given these admissions, the court follows the rational of Pinnacle Open MRI, PC., v. Republic Western Insurance Co., 18 Misc 3d 626 (Dist. Ct., Nassau Co. 2008), in determining the latest date by which plaintiff could have commenced the lawsuit and be timely. In Pinnacle, the defendant insurer averred that it did not have the NF-3 claim form filed with it by the plaintiff, although it did not deny its receipt. The court therefore used the date of service, added the additional 180 days that plaintiff had to file the claim, and then added the maximum of 30 days in which the insurer had in which to pay or deny the claim to determine the day that plaintiff’s cause of action ripened.

Utilizing this formula, plaintiff would be barred by the six year statute of limitations from [*3]bringing this action. Adding the additional 180 days to the date of service – August 25, 1998- and then adding an additional 30 days in which the insurer had to pay or deny the claim – bring the date that the claim became overdue to March 23, 1999. Since plaintiff admits that the service of the summons and complaint upon defendant was completed on August 6, 2008 ( see proposed judgment and attorney’s affirmation of plaintiff’s counsel dated October 6, 2008 annexed to defendant’s motion as Exhibit “B”) it is clear that the instant action was commenced way beyond the six year statute of limitations. As such, the complaint is dismissed.

The foregoing constitutes the order and decision of the court.

Dated: April 28, 2010_____________________________

KATHERINE A. LEVINE

JUDGE, CIVIL COURT

ASN by_________on________

A P P E A R A N C E S:

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

Baker, Sanders, Barshay, Grossman, Fass, Muhlstock & Neuwirth

150 Herricks Road

Mineola, NY 11501

Attorneys for Defendant:

Peter C. Merani, P.C.

298 Fifth Avenue, 3rd Floor

New York, NY 10001

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

APPELLATE TERM: 2nd, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Robin S. Garson, J.), entered April 28, 2008. The order, insofar as appealed from, denied defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment.

ORDERED that the order, insofar as appealed from, is reversed without costs and defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted.

In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, plaintiff moved for summary judgment and defendant cross-moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The Civil Court denied both the motion and the cross motion. Insofar as is relevant to this appeal, the Civil Court found that defendant had established that it had timely and properly denied the claims at issue after requesting that plaintiff appear for an examination under oath (EUO), and held that “the sole issue remaining to be determined at trial is the EUO no-show as a proper basis of denial” (see CPLR 3212 [g]). Defendant appeals from so much of the order as denied its cross motion for summary judgment.

In opposition to plaintiff’s motion and in support of its cross motion for summary judgment, defendant submitted the affirmation of a partner in the law firm retained by defendant to conduct plaintiff’s EUO. Counsel alleged facts sufficient to establish that plaintiff had failed to appear at counsel’s law office for duly scheduled EUOs (see W & Z Acupuncture, P.C. v Amex Assur. Co., 24 Misc 3d 142[A], 2009 NY Slip Op 51732[U] [App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2009]; see also Stephen Fogel Psychological, P.C. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 35 AD3d 720 [2006]). The appearance of the eligible injured person’s assignee at an EUO upon a proper request is a condition precedent to the insurer’s liability on the policy (see Insurance Department Regulations [11 NYCRR] § 65-1.1; Stephen Fogel Psychological, P.C., 35 AD3d at [*2]722; W & Z Acupuncture, P.C., 24 Misc 3d 142[A], 2009 NY Slip Op 51732[U]).

In light of the foregoing, and the Civil Court’s CPLR 3212 (g) findings that the EUO requests were mailed and that the claims were timely denied, from which no appeal has been taken by plaintiff, the Civil Court should have granted defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Golia, J.P., Pesce and Rios, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: April 16, 2010

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

APPELLATE TERM: 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS

Appeal from a judgment of the District Court of Suffolk County, Second District (Patrick J. Barton, J.), entered February 16, 2006. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $11,220.

ORDERED that the judgment is reversed without costs and judgment is directed to be entered in favor of defendant dismissing the complaint.

Plaintiff Specialty Surgical Services commenced this action to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits for medical services rendered. After a nonjury trial, the District Court awarded judgment in favor of plaintiff in the principal sum of $11,220. The instant appeal by defendant ensued.

Defendant’s contention, that plaintiff lacks standing since the assignment executed by plaintiff’s assignor was in favor of North Jersey Center for Surgery rather than plaintiff, lacks merit. A copy of the assignment accompanied plaintiff’s claim form, and the discrepancy was apparent on its face. Defendant did not seek verification with respect to the assignment, and its denial of claim form did not deny the claim on the ground that the assignment was defective. Consequently, defendant is precluded from litigating this issue (see Hospital for Joint Diseases v Travelers Prop. Cas. Ins. Co., 9 NY3d 312 [2007]; Davydov v Progressive Ins. Co., 25 Misc 3d 19 [App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2009]).

At trial, defendant’s doctor testified that the services provided were not medically necessary, and defendant also admitted into evidence a copy of the doctor’s affirmed peer review report, which was to the same effect. Both the doctor’s testimony and his report set forth a factual basis and medical rationale for his conclusion that the services rendered were not medical necessary. This evidence was not rebutted by plaintiff. In view of the foregoing, we disagree [*2]with the District Court’s finding that defendant failed to establish that the services provided were not medically necessary. Accordingly, the judgment is reversed and judgment is directed to be entered in favor of defendant dismissing the complaint (see Cohen v Hallmark Cards, Inc., 45 NY2d 493 [1978]; S.J. Pahng, M.D., P.C. v Progressive Northeastern Ins. Co., 20 Misc 3d 137[A]; 2008 NY Slip Op 51537[U] [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2008]; see also Delta Diagnostic Radiology, P.C. v Integon Natl. Ins. Co., 24 Misc 3d 136[A], 2009 NY Slip Op 51502[U] [App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2009]; A. Khodadadi Radiology, P.C. v NY Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 16 Misc 3d 131[A], 2007 NY Slip Op 51342[U] [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2007]).

LaCava and Iannacci, JJ., concur.

Molia, J.P., taking no part.
Decision Date: April 16, 2010

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

APPELLATE TERM: 2nd, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Margaret A. Pui Yee Chan, J.), entered March 12, 2009. The order, insofar as appealed from, denied without prejudice defendant’s motion for summary judgment.

ORDERED that the order, insofar as appealed from, is reversed without costs, the provision denying without prejudice defendant’s motion for summary judgment is stricken and defendant’s motion for summary judgment is remitted to the Civil Court to be held in abeyance pending a prompt application to the Workers’ Compensation Board for a determination of the parties’ rights under the Workers’ Compensation Law. In the event plaintiff fails to file proof with the Civil Court of such application within 90 days of the date of the order entered hereon, the Civil Court shall grant defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint unless plaintiff shows good cause why the complaint should not be dismissed.

In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint based upon plaintiff’s assignor’s alleged eligibility for workers’ compensation benefits. Plaintiff opposed the motion and cross-moved for summary judgment. The Civil Court denied without prejudice both the motion and cross motion. Defendant appeals from so much of the order as denied without prejudice its motion for summary judgment.

The Workers’ Compensation Board (Board) has primary jurisdiction to determine factual issues concerning coverage under the Workers’ Compensation Law (see Botwinick v Ogden, 59 NY2d 909 [1983]; LMK Psychological Serv., P.C. v American Tr. Ins. Co., 64 AD3d 752 [2009]; Santigate v Linsalata, 304 AD2d 639 [2003]). Where a plaintiff fails to litigate the issue of the availability of workers’ compensation coverage before the Board, “the court should not [*2]express an opinion as to the availability of compensation but remit the matter to the Board” (Liss v Trans Auto Sys., 68 NY2d 15, 21 [1986]; see also O’Hurley-Pitts v Diocese of Rockville Ctr., 57 AD3d 633, 634 [2008]).

In the instant case, contrary to plaintiff’s contention, defendant proffered sufficient evidence in admissible form of the alleged facts which gave rise to its contention that plaintiff’s assignor was acting as an employee at the time of the accident and that therefore workers’ compensation benefits were available (see e.g. Response Equip., Inc. v American Tr. Ins. Co., 15 Misc 3d 145[A], 2007 NY Slip Op 51176[U] [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2007]; see also A.B. Med. Servs., PLLC v American Tr. Ins. Co., 24 Misc 3d 75 [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2009]; cf. Westchester Med. Ctr. v American Tr. Ins. Co., 60 AD3d 848 [2009]). This issue must be resolved in the first instance by the Board (see O’Rourke v Long, 41 NY2d 219, 225 [1976]; see also Infinity Health Prods., Ltd. v New York City Tr. Auth., 21 Misc 3d 136[A], 2008 NY Slip Op 52218[U] [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2008]; Response Equip., Inc. v American Tr. Ins. Co., 15 Misc 3d 145[A], 2007 NY Slip Op 51176[U]).

Defendant’s motion should not have been denied without prejudice but, rather, should have been held in abeyance pending Board resolution. A prompt application to the Board, as set forth above, is required in order to determine the parties’ rights under the Workers’ Compensation Law (see LMK Psychological Serv., P.C. v American Tr. Ins. Co., 64 AD3d 752). Accordingly, we reverse the order, insofar as appealed from.

Golia, J.P., Weston and Rios, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: April 13, 2010

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

APPELLATE TERM: 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS

Appeal from an order of the District Court of Nassau County, Third District (Norman Janowitz, J.), entered November 26, 2008. The order denied defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed without costs.

In this action by three providers to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, defendant moved for dismissal of the complaint on the ground of res judicata (CPLR 3211 [a] [5]). Defendant argued that plaintiffs had previously commenced an identical action, which had been dismissed pursuant to CPLR 3126 (3) for plaintiffs’ failure to comply with a discovery order. Defendant appeals from the denial of its motion.

“Where a plaintiff’s noncompliance with a disclosure order does not result in a dismissal with prejudice, or an order of preclusion or summary judgment in favor of defendant so as to effectively close plaintiff’s proof, dismissal resulting from the noncompliance is not a merits determination so as to bar commencement of a second action” (Maitland v Trojan Elec. & Mach. Co., 65 NY2d 614, 615-616 [1985]; Downtown Acupuncture, P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 20 Misc 3d 137[A], 2008 NY Slip Op 51552[U] [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2008]; see Daluise v Sottile, 40 AD3d 801, 802-803 [2007]; Aguilar v Jacoby, 34 AD3d 706, 707 [2006]). Plaintiffs’ prior action was dismissed pursuant to CPLR 3126 (3), but the dismissal order did not state that the dismissal was with prejudice, nor does a review of the record reveal the existence of a preclusion order. Consequently, plaintiffs were not barred from [*2]commencing a second action. Accordingly, the District Court properly denied defendant’s pre-answer motion to dismiss the complaint based on the doctrine of res judicata.

Nicolai, P.J., Tanenbaum and LaCava, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: April 13, 2010