Decided on January 10, 2022

Supreme Court, New York County

Index No. CV-1526-20/SM
James F. Matthews, J.

Upon the following papers numbered 1 to 65 read on this motion by defendant for an order seeking Summary Judgment of dismissal ; by Notice of Motion/Order to Show Cause and supporting papers 1-4,61 ; Notice of Cross Motion and supporting papers ; Answering Affidavits and supporting papers 62,63 ; Replying Affidavits and supporting papers 64,65 ; Filed papers; Other exhibits: 5-60, (and after hearing counsel in support of and opposed to the motion), it is

ORDERED that the motion by defendant for summary judgment dismissing plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to CPLR 3212(b), is granted.

Plaintiff medical provider seeks reimbursement from defendant insurer for assigned first party no-fault benefits for medical dates of service (“DOS”) rendered to plaintiff’s assignor from 02/06/2019 through 03/19/2020, for injuries sustained from a car accident of 01/28/2019, in the outstanding sum of $7,399.77, under New York’s No-Fault Law.

Defendant now moves for summary judgment dismissing the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3212(b), supported by the affidavit of its Claims Supervisor, Danuta Fudali, which asserts, inter alia, that defendant timely mailed its NF-10 Denial Of Claim forms (“denials”) and Explanation of Benefits (“EOB’s”) to plaintiff, pursuant to the practices and procedures it established to ensure timely deliver of its mailings to the intended recipient, thereby creating a presumption of receipt. The denials were based upon defendant’s payment in full for plaintiff’s submissions of excessive billing not compiled in accordance with the Workers’ Compensation [*2]Fee Schedule (“Fee Schedule”), pursuant to the findings in the affidavit of Carolyn Mallory, C.P.C. (“Certified Professional Coder”)^[FN1] , and the lack of medical necessity for certain chiropractic and acupuncture billing, as supported by the Independent Medical Examination (“IME”) and report of Dr. John Iozzio, D.C., L.Ac., dated 03/26/2019, the IME report of Dr. John Iozzio dated 05/02/2019, and the peer review report of Dr. Daniel Sposta, D.C., L.Ac., dated 05/15/2019, which cut off any further chiropractic and acupuncture treatments as of 04/22/2019 and 05/23/2019, respectively.

In opposition to the motion for summary judgment, plaintiff asserts it attached to its papers as an exhibit, the affidavit of Dr. Vadim Dolsky, L.Ac., to rebut the claims of Dr. Iozzio and Dr. Sposta, by demonstrating plaintiff’s assignor was symptomatic and required the treatments provided by the treating providers; that Dr. Iozzio’s IME reports concede that the evaluations and treatments prior to the IME dates were medically necessary; that defendant’s IME reports failed to demonstrate the disputed services were inconsistent with generally accepted medical or professional practices; and Dr. Dolsky’s professional opinion differs from that stated by defendant’s experts, thereby raising a question of fact requiring a trial.

In addition, plaintiff asserts it attached to its papers as an exhibit, the affidavit of Priti Kumar, C.P.C., to rebut the facts and opinions on the proper use of the fee schedule, in opposition to the opinion expressed by Carolyn Mallory, C.P.C. on behalf of defendant. Plaintiff contends the difference of opinion of each party’s expert raises a question of fact, which requires a trial.

In reply to plaintiff’s opposition papers, defendant urges the Court to ignore the purported findings of both Dr. Vadim Dolsky, L.Ac., and that of Priti Kumar, C.P.C., as there are no affidavits or exhibits attached to plaintiff’s papers as an exhibit. Indeed, a search by the Court for the existence of any exhibits or affidavits from plaintiff proved useless, as there is none to be found.

A proponent of a motion for summary judgment must make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law with proof in admissible form sufficient to establish the lack of any material issues of fact (see Alvarez v Prospect Hospital, 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]; Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853 [1985]; Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557,562 [1980]; see also Manhattan Medical v State Farm Mut. Ins. Co., 20 Misc 3d 1144[A][Civ. Ct. Richmond Cty. 2008]).

Once a showing of entitlement to summary judgment has been made, the burden shifts to the party opposing the motion for summary judgment, to produce evidentiary proof in admissible form sufficient to establish the existence of material issues of fact which require a trial of the action (see CPLR 3212 [b]; Alvarez v Prospect Hospital, supra; Zuckerman v City of New York, supra).

An attorney’s affirmation which demonstrates no personal knowledge of the facts, is insufficient to defeat a motion for summary judgment, but may serve as a vehicle for the submission of acceptable attachments, which do provide evidentiary proof in admissible form (see Zuckerman v City of New York, supra).

Here, the Court determines defendant has satisfied its burden of demonstrating the existence and following of its standard office practices and procedures for the timely and proper mailing of its NF-10 denial of claim forms and EOR’s to plaintiff (see Delta Diagnostic Radiology, P.C. v Chubb Group of Ins., 17 Misc 3d 16 [App Term, 2nd Dept, 2007]). Defendant’s mailing methods were sufficient to create a rebuttable presumption of proper mailing (see St. Vincent’s Hosp. of Richmond v GEICO, 50 AD3d 1123, 1124 [2nd Dept 2008]; New York Presbyt. Hosp. v Allstate Ins. Co.,29 AD3d 547 [2nd Dept 2006]; Gentlecare Ambulatory Anesthesia Servs. v GEICO Ins. Co., 57 Misc 3d 150[A][App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2017]). “…Proof of proper mailing gives rise to a presumption that the item was received by the addressee” (see Residential Holding Corp. v Scottsdale Ins. Co., 286 AD2d 679, 680 [2nd Dept 2001]), which presumptions of receipt, were not refuted or denied by plaintiff in the instant matter. Plaintiff’s arguments in opposition are unavailing.

The Court further determines that defendant has made a prima facie showing of entitlement to summary judgment as a matter of law with proof in admissible form sufficient to establish the lack of any material issues of fact, which has not been refuted by plaintiff (see Alvarez v Prospect Hospital,supra]; Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Center, supra; Zuckerman v City of New York, supra).

The failure to submit a rebuttal affidavit from plaintiff’s C.P.C. expert on the contested fee schedule issues, leaves only the opposition analysis of plaintiff’s attorney, with no personal knowledge of the facts, unsupported by expert witness testimony as to the use and interpretation of the fee schedules in the context of defendant’s components and calculations of the alleged maximum permissible fee (see Murali v Upton, 175 Misc 2d 186, 187-188 [Civ Ct, NY Cty, 1997]).

In addition, the failure to submit a rebuttal affidavit from plaintiff’s expert physician showing the medical necessity of its billing in a non-conclusory manner and meaningful way, rebutting the issues raised in the insurer’s IME and peer review reports, fails to demonstrate the existence of a triable issue of fact as to whether there was a lack of medical necessity for the medical services at issue (see Throgs Neck Multicare, P.C. v Mercury Ins. Co., 52 Misc 3d 138[a}[App Term, 2nd Dept, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2016]), and leaves the conclusions of defendant’s medical experts un-refuted (see Pan Chiropractic, P.C. v Mercury Ins. Co., 24 Misc 3d 136[A][App Term, 2nd, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2009]).

“The law is well settled that a party, in opposition to a motion for summary judgment, must assemble and lay bare affirmative proof to demonstrate that the matters alleged are real and capable of being established upon trial” (see Nelson v Lundy, 298 AD2d 689, 690 [3rd Dept 2002]; see also Wasson v Bond, 80 AD3d 1114 [3rd Dept 2011]). The plaintiff’s papers fail to meet this standard and accordingly, judgment is granted in favor of defendant and the complaint is dismissed (see Jamil M. Abraham, M.D., P.C. v Country Wide Ins. Co.,3 Misc 3d 130[A][App Term, 2nd & 11th Jud Dists 2004]; Murali v Upton, supra).

Accordingly, the motion for summary judgment by defendant pursuant to CPLR 3212(b), is granted. The foregoing constitutes the decision and order of this Court.

Dated: January 5, 2022
J.D.C.

Footnotes

Footnote 1:Defendant’s expert Coder states under oath that in the event medical necessity is found at a trial, the amounts to be allowed under the fee schedule would be $447.32 for Bills 1 through 6, and $3,798.60 for Bills 7 through 46 (see page 46 of Carolyn Mallory’s affidavit).

Hollander Legal Group, P.C. (Allan S. Hollander of counsel), for appellant. Zara Javakov, P.C. (Victoria Tarasova of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Matthew P. Blum, J.), entered February 18, 2020. The order, insofar as appealed from, denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and, in effect, granted plaintiff’s cross motion for summary judgment to the extent of (1) dismissing defendant’s affirmative defense that plaintiff had failed to appear for duly scheduled examinations under oath and (2) awarding plaintiff partial summary judgment on liability.

ORDERED that the order, insofar as appealed from, is modified by vacating so much of the order as granted the branches of plaintiff’s cross motion seeking (1) summary judgment dismissing defendant’s affirmative defense that plaintiff had failed to appear for duly scheduled examinations under oath with respect to the claims received between May 11, 2018 and June 22, 2018 and (2) partial summary judgment on liability with respect to the claims received between May 11, 2018 and June 22, 2018, and by providing that those branches of plaintiff’s cross motion are denied; as so modified, the order, insofar as appealed from, is affirmed, without costs.

In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that plaintiff had failed to appear for duly scheduled examinations under oath (EUOs). Plaintiff cross-moved for summary judgment. In an order entered February 18, 2020, the Civil Court denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment, stating that “Defendant [had] failed to issue the denials within 30 days of the second missed EUO,” and granted plaintiff’s cross motion to the extent of dismissing the affirmative defense that plaintiff failed to appear for duly scheduled EUOs and awarding plaintiff partial summary judgment on liability.

With respect to the claims received by defendant between May 11, 2018 through June 22, 2018, the record demonstrates, prima facie, that the EUO scheduling letters were timely mailed (see St. Vincent’s Hosp. of Richmond v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 50 AD3d 1123 [2008]) to plaintiff, that plaintiff failed to appear for those EUOs, and that defendant timely denied those claims on the ground that plaintiff had failed to appear. However, as we find that a triable issue of fact exists as to whether those EUOs were scheduled to be held at a place that was “reasonably convenient” to plaintiff (see 11 NYCRR 65-3.5 [e]; Parisien v Metlife Auto & Home, 68 Misc 3d 126[A], 2020 NY Slip Op 50845[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2020]), defendant failed to establish that it is entitled to summary judgment dismissing so much the complaint as sought to recover upon the claims received between May 11, 2018 through June 22, 2018. Consequently, neither party is entitled to summary judgment upon those claims.

While defendant further contends that the branch of its motion seeking summary judgment dismissing so much of the complaint as sought to recover upon the claims it received between March 22, 2018 and April 27, 2018 should have been granted and that the Civil Court erred in granting the branch of plaintiff’s cross motion seeking partial summary judgment on liability upon those claims, defendant’s argument lacks merit. The record establishes that defendant failed to timely deny those claims (see Island Life Chiropractic Pain Care, LLC v 21st Century Ins. Co., — Misc 3d &mdash, 2021 NY Slip Op 21340 [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2021]; Quality Health Supply Corp. v Nationwide Ins., 69 Misc 3d 133[A], 2020 NY Slip Op 51226[A] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2020]). Furthermore, here there is no basis to disturb so much of the order as granted plaintiff partial summary judgment as to liability upon these claims.

Accordingly, the order, insofar as appealed from, is modified by vacating so much of the order as granted the branches of plaintiff’s cross motion seeking (1) summary judgment dismissing defendant’s affirmative defense that plaintiff had failed to appear for duly scheduled examinations under oath, with respect to the claims received between May 11, 2018 and June 22, 2018 and (2) partial summary judgment on liability with respect to the claims received between May 11, 2018 and June 22, 2018, and by providing that those branches of plaintiff’s cross motion are denied.

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

Kopelevich & Feldsherova, P.C. (David Landfair of counsel), for appellant. Gallo, Vitucci & Klar, LLP, for respondent (no brief filed).

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Matthew P. Blum, J.), entered March 10, 2020. The order granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

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

In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that, pursuant to Florida law, there was a lack of coverage due to the valid rescission, ab initio, of the Florida automobile insurance policy in question. According to an affidavit submitted by an employee of defendant’s managing general agent, an investigation conducted after the accident revealed that, at the time the policy was renewed, about three weeks before the accident, the policyholder, who is also the assignor, did not reside, or garage the vehicle, in Florida. Plaintiff opposed the motion. By order entered March 10, 2020, the Civil Court granted the motion. On appeal, plaintiff contends that New York law, which does not permit retroactive rescission, controls and, in any event, that defendant failed to demonstrate that the insurance policy had been properly rescinded in accordance with Florida law.

Upon a review of the record, we find that the Civil Court properly applied Florida law to the substantive issue involved herein (see Matter of Allstate Ins. Co. [Stolarz-New Jersey Mfrs. Ins. Co.], 81 NY2d 219, 223 [1993]; Auten v Auten, 308 NY 155, 160-161 [1954]; Matter of Eagle Ins. Co. v Singletary, 279 AD2d 56, 60 [2000]). In order to demonstrate that an [*2]automobile insurance policy has been properly rescinded ab initio in accordance with Florida law, an insurer must demonstrate that it gave notice of the rescission to the policyholder and that it returned, or tendered, all paid premiums within a reasonable time after the discovery of the grounds for avoiding the policy (see Fla Stat Ann § 627.728 [5]; Leonardo v State Farm Fire and Cas. Co., 675 So 2d 176, 179 [Fla Dist Ct App, 4th Dist 1996]; see also United Auto. Ins. Co. v Salgado, 22 So 3d 594, 600-601 [Fla Dist Ct App, 3d Dist 2009]). Contrary to plaintiff’s arguments, in the case at bar, defendant was not required to demonstrate the basis for the retroactive rescission in support of its motion for summary judgment (see Craigg v Infinity Select Ins. Co., 38 Misc 3d 56, 58 [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2013]).

As defendant’s motion papers demonstrated that a rescission notice was sent to the policyholder, and that defendant had returned all premiums paid to the policyholder within a reasonable period of time after defendant’s discovery of the grounds for rescinding the policy, defendant established, prima facie, that it had voided the policy ab initio pursuant to Florida law (see Omphil Care, Inc. v Pearl Holding Group Managing Gen. Agent for Ocean Harbor Cas. Ins. Co., 68 Misc 3d 129[A], 2020 NY Slip Op 50946[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2020]; W.H.O. Acupuncture, P.C. v Infinity Prop. & Cas. Co., 36 Misc 3d 4, 6-7 [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2012], citing Leonardo v State Farm Fire and Cas. Co., 675 So 2d at 179). Plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact in opposition to the motion (see Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557 [1980]).

Accordingly, the order is affirmed.

ALIOTTA, P.J., TOUSSAINT and GOLIA, JJ., concur.

Bruno, Gerbino, Soriano & Aitken, LLP (Susan B. Eisner of counsel), for appellant. Zara Javakov, P.C. (Zara Javakov of counsel), for respondent (no brief filed).

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Ira R. Greenberg, J.), entered October 7, 2019. The order denied as untimely defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

ORDERED that the order is reversed, with $30 costs, and the matter is remitted to the Civil Court for a determination of defendant’s motion on the merits.

In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, plaintiff filed a notice of trial on June 14, 2018. On October 12, 2018, defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Plaintiff opposed the motion on the ground that defendant’s motion was untimely. By order entered October 7, 2019, the Civil Court denied defendant’s motion on the ground that it was untimely.

Contrary to plaintiff’s contention, defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint was not untimely under CPLR 3212 (a). CPLR 3212 (a) provides that a motion for summary judgment “shall be made no later than one hundred twenty days after the filing of the note of issue, except with leave of court on good cause shown” (see also Brill v City of New York, 2 NY3d 648, 651 [2004]). A motion is made when the notice of motion is served (see CPLR 2211; Russo v Eveco Dev. Corp., 256 AD2d 566, 566 [1998]; Chimbay v Palma, 14 Misc 3d 130[A], 2007 NY Slip Op 50019[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2007]), and when a motion is served upon a party’s attorney by mail, service is complete upon mailing (see CPLR 2103 [b] [2]; Pietrafesa v Canestro, 130 AD3d 602 [2015]). Here, it is uncontroverted that the notice of trial, the Civil Court equivalent of a note of issue, was filed on June 14, 2018 [*2]and, thus, contrary to the Civil Court’s determination, defendant’s motion was timely when it was served on October 12, 2018.

Accordingly, the order is reversed and the matter is remitted to the Civil Court for a determination of defendant’s motion on the merits.

ALIOTTA, P.J., TOUSSAINT and GOLIA, JJ., concur.

Index No. CV-709085-19/QU

Plaintiff’s counsel:
Law Offices of Gabriel & Shapiro, L.L.C.
3361 Park Avenue, Suite 1000
Wantagh, NY 11793

Defendant’s counsel:
Gullo & Associates, LLP
520 86th Street
Brooklyn, NY 11209

I. Papers

The following papers were read on Defendant’s motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint:

Papers Numbered

Defendant’s Notice of Motion and Affirmation dated July 1, 2020 (“Motion”) and electronically filed with the court on the same date. 1

II. Background

In a summons and complaint dated November 1, 2018 and file stamped by the court on April 25, 2019, Plaintiff sued Defendant insurance company to recover $381.48 in unpaid first party No-Fault benefits for medical services provided to Plaintiff’s assignor Warren from [*2]January 2, 2013 to January 15, 2013 and from January 18, 2013 to February 7, 2013, plus attorneys’ fees and statutory interest (see Motion, Aff. of O’Shea, Ex. A). Defendant moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground that Plaintiff commenced its action after the applicable statute of limitations had expired (CPLR 3211[a][5]). Plaintiff did not oppose Defendant’s Motion. This matter was assigned to this Court for determination on November 17, 2021.

III. Discussion

“A party may move for judgment dismissing one or more causes of action asserted against [the party] on the ground that . . . the cause of action may not be maintained because of . . . statute of limitations” (CPLR 3211[a][5]). First-party No-Fault causes of action are governed by the six-year statute of limitations for actions arising out of contract (CPLR 213[2]; Richmond Pain Mgt., P.C. v Aetna/Travelers Ins. Co., 39 Misc 3d 147[A], 2013 NY Slip Op 50900[U] *1 [App Term 2d Dept 2013]; EBM Med. Health Care, P.C. v Amica Mut. Ins. Co., 32 Misc 3d 144[A], 2011 NY Slip Op 51720[U] *1 [App Term 2d Dept 2011]; DJS Med. Supplies, Inc. v Clarendon Natl. Ins. Co., 32 Misc 3d 129[A], 2011 NY Slip Op 51304[U] *1 [App Term 2d Dept 2011]).

For a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211[a][5], Defendant bears the burden to show that “the time within which to commence the cause of action has expired” (Golden Jubilee Realty, LL v Castro, 196 AD3d 680, 683 [2d Dept 2021], see Siegler v Lippe, 189 AD3d 903, 904 [2d Dept 2020]; Shirom Acupuncture, P.C. v New York City Off. of Comptroller, 47 Misc 3d 150[A], 2015 NY Slip Op 50779[U] *1 [App Term 2d Dept 2015]; Richmond Pain Mgt., P.C. v Aetna/Travelers Ins. Co., 2013 NY Slip Op 50900[U] *1). Here, Defendant argued that a No-Fault cause of action accrued thirty (30) days from the submission of the bills or the date of denial. Contrary to Defendant’s contention, in a No-Fault action, the cause of action accrues thirty (30) days after Defendant’s receipt of the bills (EBM Med. Health Care, P.C. v Amica Mut. Ins. Co., 2011 NY Slip Op 51720[U] *1; DJS Med. Supplies, Inc. v Clarendon Natl. Ins. Co., 2011 NY Slip Op 51304[U] *1). In evaluating a motion to dismiss a complaint as time barred, the Court must accept the allegations in the complaint as true and resolve inferences in Plaintiff’s favor (Silver v. Silver, 162 AD3d 937, 939 [2d Dept 2018]; Cataldo v. Herrmann, 154 AD3d 641, 642 [2d Dept 2017]; EBM Med. Health Care, P.C. v Amica Mut. Ins. Co., 2011 NY Slip Op 51720[U] *1-2). In our instant case, Plaintiff’s complaint did not allege when or if Defendant received Plaintiff’s bills. In addition, Defendant’s “no-fault litigation claims” handler, Scarfino, attested that Defendant “[had] not received a properly executed No-Fault Application” as of May 28, 2020, the date of Ms. Scarfino’s affidavit (see Motion, Aff. of O’Shea, Ex. C).

It is well settled that the injured party or assignee of No-Fault benefits must submit proof of the claim to the insurer within 45 days of the date when health services were rendered (Viviane Etienne Med. Care, P.C. v Country-Wide Ins. Co., 25 AD3d 498, 505 [2015]; Fair Price Med. Supply Corp. v Travelers Indem. Co., 10 NY3d 556, 563 [2008]; 11 NYCRR § 65-1.1[d]) and that insurers must pay or deny No-Fault benefit claims within thirty (30) “days of receipt of proof of the claim” (Viviane Etienne Med. Care, P.C. v Country-Wide Ins. Co., 25 NY3d at 501; Fair Price Med. Supply Corp. v Travelers Indem. Co., 10 NY3d at 563; Hospital for Joint Diseases v Travelers Prop. Cas. Ins. Co., 9 NY3d 312, 317 [2007]). The accrual date [*3]of a No-Fault action may also be computed by adding forty-five (45) days from the date when health services were provided to the thirty (30) days when Defendant has to pay or deny the claim provided that the complaint also alleges Plaintiff’s timely submission of the claims and Defendant’s untimely denial of the claims (see Wexford Med., P.C. v Commerce Ins. Co., 40 Misc 3d 133[A], 2013 NY Slip Op 51193[U] *1 [App Term 1st Dept 2013]; Flatlands Acupuncture, P.C. Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co., 32 Misc 3d 17, 19-20 [App Term 2d Dept 2011]). Here, while the inartfully drafted complaint alleged that “there ha[d] been no payment” of the bill (Motion, O’Shea Aff. Ex. A at 4-5), it was completely silent as to Defendant’s denial of the claim, timely or not. It is noted, however, that Plaintiff also did not allege the date when the claim/bill was submitted to Defendant, other than stating that the bills were “submitted to [D]efendant more than 30 days ago” from the date of Plaintiff’s complaint which was dated as of November 1, 2018 (id.). Therefore, the accrual date of this No-Fault claim cannot be computed using this method. Since Defendant failed to establish the accrual date of Plaintiff’s claim, it cannot be determined if Plaintiff commenced action before expiration of the statute of limitations. Because Defendant did not meet its burden on its Motion to dismiss on the ground of statute of limitations, the Motion must be denied (see Richmond Pain Mgt., P.C. v Aetna/Travelers Ins. Co., 2013 NY Slip Op 50900[U] *2; EBM Med. Health Care, P.C. v Amica Mut. Ins. Co., 2011 NY Slip Op 51720[U] *2); however, Defendant is not left without any other remedy.

To the extent that Defendant sought costs against Plaintiff for failing to oppose Defendant’s Motion, this Court finds that such conduct had not been shown “to delay or prolong the resolution of the litigation or to harass or maliciously injure another” (22 NYCRR 130-1.1[c][2]) as Defendant contended (Zhuoya Luo v Wensheng Wang, 176 AD3d 1016, 1018 [2d Dept 2019]). Therefore, the Court also denies Defendant’s request for costs as a sanction for frivolous conduct (22 NYCRR 130-1.1[a]).

IV. Order

Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that Defendant’s motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint on the ground of statute of limitations is denied; and it is further

ORDERED that Defendant’s request for costs against Plaintiff is denied.

This constitutes the Decision and Order of the court.

Dated: December 21, 2021
Queens County Civil Court
____________________________

Honorable Wendy Changyong Li, J.C.C.

[*1]

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Department, 2d, 11th and 13th Judicial Districts, December 17, 2021

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

Law Offices of Buratti, Rothenberg & Burns (Kenneth F. Popper of counsel) for appellant.

Goldman Law Offices (Anna Goldman of counsel) for respondent.

Ordered that the order, insofar as appealed from, is reversed, with $30 costs, and the matter is remitted to the Civil Court for a new determination, following a traverse hearing, of the branches of defendant’s motion seeking to, in effect, vacate the order entered April 20, 2017, granting plaintiff’s motion to enter a default judgment and, upon such vacatur, to dismiss the complaint.

In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, defendant did not appear or answer the complaint. By order entered April 20, 2017, the Civil Court (Susan Quirk, J.) granted, on default, plaintiff’s motion to enter a default judgment. In September 2017, defendant moved to, among other things, in effect, vacate the April 20, 2017 order, alleging that it had not received plaintiff’s motion, and, upon such vacatur, to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction. Plaintiff opposed the motion. As limited by its brief, defendant appeals from so much of an order entered July 12, 2019, as denied the foregoing branches of defendant’s motion.

“It is axiomatic that the failure to serve process in an action leaves the court without [*2]personal jurisdiction over the defendant, and all subsequent proceedings are thereby rendered null and void” (Emigrant Mtge. Co., Inc. v Westervelt, 105 AD3d 896, 897 [2013] [internal quotation marks omitted]). Lack of personal jurisdiction, and thus the question of whether there ever was a default, is a “threshold issue” (McSpedon v Levine, 158 AD3d 618, 620 [2018]). Here, defendant submitted a detailed affidavit by the claims clerk alleged to have received service of process, which affidavit was sufficient to rebut the{**74 Misc 3d at 43} process server’s affidavit and raise an issue of fact necessitating a traverse hearing (see Cautious Care Med., P.C. v 21st Century Ins. Co., 72 Misc 3d 140[A], 2021 NY Slip Op 50785[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2021]).

We note that, while CPLR 3215 (c) requires a plaintiff which seeks to enter a default judgment more than one year after the default to show sufficient cause why the complaint should not be dismissed, on the record before us, there is no basis to find that plaintiff herein failed to make such a showing. Plaintiff’s motion papers are not included in the record and defendant did not raise this argument in the Civil Court.

Accordingly, the order, insofar as appealed from, is reversed and the matter is remitted to the Civil Court for a new determination, following a traverse hearing, of the branches of defendant’s motion seeking to, in effect, vacate the order entered April 20, 2017, granting plaintiff’s motion to enter a default judgment and, upon such vacatur, to dismiss the complaint.

Weston, J. (concurring in part and dissenting in part, and voting to reverse the order, insofar as appealed from, and grant the branches of defendant’s motion seeking to vacate the order entered April 20, 2017, and to dismiss the complaint as abandoned). On or about December 10, 2010, plaintiff, a provider, commenced this action seeking to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits. Seven years later, plaintiff moved for the entry of a default judgment, which motion was granted. Plaintiff alleged that defendant was served on or about December 16, 2010, by leaving a copy of the summons and complaint with an authorized agent for the corporation. The April 20, 2017 order granting the entry of a default judgment makes no mention that any excuse for the delay was offered or that good cause was shown.

In September 2017, defendant moved to vacate the April 20, 2017 order on the grounds that defendant was not personally served. An affidavit from the person allegedly served denying service was attached to the papers. Further, pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a) (1), defendant asserted that the lack of service provided a reasonable excuse for the default and submitted a meritorious defense to the action.

It is well settled that “[w]hen a plaintiff fails to seek leave to enter a default judgment within one year after the default has occurred, the action is deemed abandoned” (Solano v Castro, 72 AD3d 932, 932-933 [2d Dept 2010]; see CPLR 3215 [c]; Perricone v City of New York, 62 NY2d 661, 663 [1984];{**74 Misc 3d at 44} Staples v Jeff Hunt Devs., Inc., 56 AD3d 459 [2d Dept 2008]; Mattera v Capric, 54 AD3d 827 [2d Dept 2008]; Kay Waterproofing Corp. v Ray Realty Fulton, Inc., 23 AD3d 624, 625 [2d Dept 2005]; Monzon v Sony Motor, 115 AD2d 714 [2d Dept 1985]). The procedure for obtaining a default judgment is plainly set forth in CPLR 3215 (c). CPLR 3215 (c) provides

“[i]f the plaintiff fails to take proceedings for the entry of judgment within one year after the default, the court shall not enter judgment but shall dismiss the complaint as abandoned, without costs, upon its own initiative or on motion, unless sufficient cause is shown why the [*3]complaint should not be dismissed” (see Pipinias v J. Sackaris & Sons, Inc., 116 AD3d 749, 750 [2d Dept 2014]; see also Baruch v Nassau County, 134 AD3d 658, 659 [2d Dept 2015]).

“The language of CPLR 3215 (c) is not, in the first instance, discretionary, but mandatory, inasmuch as courts ‘shall’ dismiss claims (CPLR 3215 [c]) for which default judgments are not sought within the requisite one-year period, as those claims are then deemed abandoned” (Giglio v NTIMP, Inc., 86 AD3d 301, 307-308 [2d Dept 2011]; see Bank of N.Y. v Kushnir, 150 AD3d 946 [2d Dept 2017]; Butindaro v Grinberg, 57 AD3d 932 [2d Dept 2008]; County of Nassau v Chmela, 45 AD3d 722 [2d Dept 2007]). It is not necessary that a motion to dismiss be made, since the statute provides the court with the authority not to enter judgment on an abandoned complaint. The court on its own initiative should dismiss the complaint in the absence of compliance with the statute (see U.S. Bank, N.A. v Laulicht, 176 AD3d 892, 893 [2d Dept 2019]; Ibrahim v Nablus Sweets Corp., 161 AD3d 961, 963 [2d Dept 2018]).

Here, it is undisputed that plaintiff failed to seek entry of a judgment within one year of the alleged default. There is no explanation for this failure in the record. The court below should not have entered judgment in favor of plaintiff, but rather should have dismissed the complaint as abandoned. Inasmuch as defendant now seeks to vacate the order granting entry of a default judgment, the mandatory language of CPLR 3215 (c) requires the dismissal of the complaint.

Moreover, the authority for this court to dismiss the complaint is plain. Pursuant to CPLR 3215 (c), the court upon its own initiative can dismiss an action which has been deemed abandoned. In Perricone v City of New York (62 NY2d at 663), the Court noted:{**74 Misc 3d at 45}

“Having failed to comply with the statutory requirements, plaintiff’s complaint was dismissed by the Appellate Division and we find no legal error in that decision. (See Chin v Hooker, 95 AD2d 790; Winkelman v H & S Beer & Soda Discounts, 91 AD2d 660.)

“Plaintiff’s argument that the city waived its right to move for dismissal of the complaint is unpersuasive inasmuch as the Appellate Division exercised its authority under CPLR 3215 (subd [c]) and dismissed the complaint on its own initiative. Nor can plaintiff be heard to complain that he had no notice that the Appellate Division intended to act pursuant to the statute and, therefore, had no opportunity to demonstrate sufficient cause why the complaint should not be dismissed. Plaintiff was aware for more than ten years that the city had not answered, yet failed to move for a default judgment.”

Under the circumstances presented here, the seven-year delay in proceeding to enter judgment after the default should not be excused. The motion for the entry of a default judgment should have been denied (see Shinn v City of New York, 65 AD3d 621, 622-623 [2d Dept 2009]; Butindaro v Grinberg, 57 AD3d at 933; Staples v Jeff Hunt Devs., Inc., 56 AD3d at 460; Mattera v Capric, 54 AD3d at 828). A traverse hearing would not resolve the underlying delay by plaintiff in seeking a default judgment and the consequences of CPLR 3215 (c) thereto. Accordingly, defendant’s motion to vacate the April 20, 2017 order should be granted and the complaint dismissed.

Toussaint, J.P., and Elliot, J., concur; Weston, J., concurs in part and dissents in part in a separate memorandum.

Decided on December 10, 2021

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

Bryan Cave, LLP (Mathtew Sarles and Adam S. Bird-Ridnell of counsel), for appellant. The Rybak Firm, PLLC (Oleg Rybak of counsel), for respondent (no brief filed). Separate

appeals from orders of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Louis L. Nock, J.), entered December 20, 2017 and dated April 10, 2019, respectively, and from an order of the same court (Sandra E. Roper, J.), entered April 22, 2019. The order entered December 20, 2017 denied defendant’s motion which had sought summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that, pursuant to a declaratory judgment entered in the Supreme Court, New York County, defendant had no duty to provide coverage for the accident at issue in this case. The order dated April 10, 2019 denied defendant’s motion which, in effect, had sought leave to reargue defendant’s prior motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The order entered April 22, 2019 denied defendant’s cross motion which had sought summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the action was commenced after the statute of limitations had expired.

ORDERED that, on the court’s own motion, the appeals are consolidated for purposes of disposition; and it is further,

ORDERED that the order entered April 22, 2019 is reversed, with $30 costs, and defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted; and it is further,

ORDERED that the appeals from the orders entered December 20, 2017 and dated April 10, 2019, respectively, are dismissed as academic.

In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that, pursuant to a declaratory judgment entered in the Supreme Court, New York County, defendant had no duty to provide coverage for the accident at issue in this case. By order entered December 20, 2017, the Civil Court (Louis L. Nock, J.) denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment. Defendant [*2]then moved for what it denominated as leave to renew its motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the complaint and plaintiff opposed such motion. While the motion purportedly seeking renewal was pending, plaintiff moved for summary judgment. Defendant cross-moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the action had been commenced after the statute of limitations had expired. By order dated April 10, 2019, the Civil Court (Louis L. Nock, J.) denied defendant’s motion, stating that while it was denominated as one seeking renewal, it was actually an untimely motion seeking leave to reargue defendant’s prior motion which had sought summary judgment dismissing the complaint. By order entered April 22, 2019, the Civil Court (Sandra E. Roper, J.) noted that plaintiff had withdrawn its motion seeking summary judgment and denied defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

A review of the record reveals that defendant has established, as a matter of law, that the vehicle in which plaintiff’s assignor was a passenger when the accident occurred was owned by U-Haul, Inc., that the vehicle was self-insured by U-Haul, Inc., that defendant did not insure the subject vehicle, and that defendant was a third-party claims handler which processed claims on behalf of U-Haul, Inc. In addition, the affidavit by plaintiff’s owner demonstrated that the claim at issue was mailed to defendant on December 22, 2010 and the action was not commenced until November 22, 2016. Consequently, defendant’s cross motion papers established, prima facie, that the action had been commenced after the expiration of the three-year statute of limitations applicable to self-insurers (see CPLR 214 [2]; Contact Chiropractic, P.C. v New York City Tr. Auth., 31 NY3d 187 [2018]). In opposition, plaintiff failed to raise an issue of fact as to the action’s timeliness. In light of the foregoing, the appeals from the orders entered December 20, 2017 and dated April 10, 2019, respectively, have been rendered academic. We reach no other issue.

Accordingly, the order entered April 22, 2019 is reversed, defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted, and the appeals from the orders entered December 20, 2017 and dated April 10, 2019, respectively, are dismissed.

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

Bryan Cave, LLP (Mathtew Sarles and Adam S. Bird-Ridnell of counsel), for appellant. The Rybak Firm, PLLC (Oleg Rybak of counsel), for respondent (no brief filed). Separate

appeals from orders of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Louis L. Nock, J.), entered December 20, 2017 and dated April 10, 2019, respectively, and from an order of the same court (Sandra E. Roper, J.), entered April 22, 2019. The order entered December 20, 2017 denied defendant’s motion which had sought summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that, pursuant to a declaratory judgment entered in the Supreme Court, New York County, defendant had no duty to provide coverage for the accident at issue in this case. The order dated April 10, 2019 denied defendant’s motion which, in effect, had sought leave to reargue defendant’s prior motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The order entered April 22, 2019 denied defendant’s cross motion which had sought summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the action was commenced after the statute of limitations had expired.

ORDERED that, on the court’s own motion, the appeals are consolidated for purposes of disposition; and it is further,

ORDERED that the order entered April 22, 2019 is reversed, with $30 costs, and defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted; and it is further,

ORDERED that the appeals from the orders entered December 20, 2017 and dated April 10, 2019, respectively, are dismissed as academic.

In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that, pursuant to a declaratory judgment entered in the Supreme Court, New York County, defendant had no duty to provide coverage for the accident at issue in this case. By order entered December 20, 2017, the [*2]Civil Court (Louis L. Nock, J.) denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment. Defendant then moved for what it denominated as leave to renew its motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the complaint and plaintiff opposed such motion. While the motion purportedly seeking renewal was pending, plaintiff moved for summary judgment. Defendant cross-moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the action had been commenced after the statute of limitations had expired. By order dated April 10, 2019, the Civil Court (Louis L. Nock, J.) denied defendant’s motion, stating that while it was denominated as one seeking renewal, it was actually an untimely motion seeking leave to reargue defendant’s prior motion which had sought summary judgment dismissing the complaint. By order entered April 22, 2019, the Civil Court (Sandra E. Roper, J.) noted that plaintiff had withdrawn its motion seeking summary judgment and denied defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

A review of the record reveals that defendant has established, as a matter of law, that the vehicle in which plaintiff’s assignor was a passenger when the accident occurred was owned by U-Haul, Inc., that the vehicle was self-insured by U-Haul, Inc., that defendant did not insure the subject vehicle, and that defendant was a third-party claims handler which processed claims on behalf of U-Haul, Inc. In addition, the affidavit by plaintiff’s owner demonstrated that the claim at issue was mailed to defendant on December 22, 2010 and the action was not commenced until November 22, 2016. Consequently, defendant’s cross motion papers established, prima facie, that the action had been commenced after the expiration of the three-year statute of limitations applicable to self-insurers (see CPLR 214 [2]; Contact Chiropractic, P.C. v New York City Tr. Auth., 31 NY3d 187 [2018]). In opposition, plaintiff failed to raise an issue of fact as to the action’s timeliness. In light of the foregoing, the appeals from the orders entered December 20, 2017 and dated April 10, 2019, respectively, have been rendered academic. We reach no other issue.

Accordingly, the order entered April 22, 2019 is reversed, defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted, and the appeals from the orders entered December 20, 2017 and dated April 10, 2019, respectively, are dismissed.

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