[*1]

Hollander Legal Group, P.C., Melville (Allan S. Hollander of counsel), for plaintiffs-appellants.

Kopelevich & Feldsherova, P.C., Brooklyn (David Landfair of counsel), for defendant-respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Onondaga County (Donald A. Greenwood, J.), entered March 29, 2019. The order denied plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment and granted in part defendant’s cross motion to compel discovery.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously reversed on the law without costs, the motion is granted, the cross motion is dismissed, and judgment is granted in favor of plaintiffs as follows:

It is adjudged and declared that plaintiffs are under no obligation to pay or reimburse any of the subject claims.

Memorandum: As we explained in a prior appeal (Nationwide Affinity Ins. Co. of Am. v Jamaica Wellness Med., P.C., 167 AD3d 192 [4th Dept 2018]), defendant is a medical professional corporation that was assigned claims for no-fault benefits by individuals who purportedly received treatment for injuries allegedly sustained in motor vehicle accidents. Defendant submitted bills for the services it purportedly rendered, along with the assignment of benefit forms, to the insurance carrier plaintiffs (Nationwide plaintiffs) seeking reimbursement pursuant to the No-Fault Law and regulations (see Insurance Law art 51; 11 NYCRR part 65). The Nationwide plaintiffs commenced this declaratory judgment action after defendant failed to appear at repeatedly requested examinations under oath (EUOs), alleging that defendant had breached a material condition precedent necessary to coverage. The Nationwide plaintiffs then moved for summary judgment declaring that, as a result of such breach, they were under no obligation to pay or reimburse any of the subject claims. Supreme Court granted the motion, declared, among other things, that defendant breached a condition precedent to coverage by failing to appear at the scheduled EUOs, and determined that the Nationwide plaintiffs therefore had the right to deny all claims retroactively to the date of loss, regardless of whether they had issued timely denials.

We reversed the judgment insofar as appealed from, denied the Nationwide plaintiffs’ motion, and vacated the declarations. We held that a defense based on nonappearance at an EUO is subject to the preclusion remedy and that, therefore, the Nationwide plaintiffs were required to establish that they issued timely denials on that ground. We determined that the Nationwide plaintiffs failed to establish their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the issue of their timely and proper denial of coverage inasmuch as the assertions in the affidavit of their claims specialist that they issued timely denial forms to defendant for nonappearance at the EUOs were conclusory and unsupported by any such denial forms (Nationwide Affinity Ins. Co. of Am., 167 AD3d at 198).

The Nationwide plaintiffs subsequently filed a second motion for summary judgment on the complaint and submitted, inter alia, a detailed affidavit of the claims specialist, the subject denial of claim forms, and affidavits of the operations manager of their third-party claims processor. Defendant cross-moved pursuant to CPLR 3124 to compel discovery. Supreme Court denied the motion on the ground that it was an improper successive motion for summary judgment and granted in part the cross motion. The Nationwide plaintiffs now appeal.

We agree with the Nationwide plaintiffs that the court erred in refusing to entertain their second summary judgment motion. “Although successive summary judgment motions generally are disfavored absent newly discovered evidence or other sufficient cause . . . , neither Supreme Court nor this Court is precluded from addressing the merits of such a motion” (Giardina v Lippes, 77 AD3d 1290, 1291 [4th Dept 2010], lv denied 16 NY3d 702 [2011]; see Putrelo Constr. Co. v Town of Marcy, 137 AD3d 1591, 1593 [4th Dept 2016]). Here, our intervening decision in the prior appeal, which clarified that the defense based on nonappearance at an EUO is subject to the preclusion remedy and that the Nationwide plaintiffs were therefore required to establish that they issued timely denials on that ground, constitutes sufficient cause to entertain the motion (see Pludeman v Northern Leasing Sys., Inc., 106 AD3d 612, 616 [1st Dept 2013]).

We further agree with the Nationwide plaintiffs that they are entitled to summary judgment. Contrary to defendant’s contentions, we conclude upon our review of the record that the Nationwide plaintiffs met their burden as movant and that defendant failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Nationwide Affinity Ins. Co. of Am. v Beacon Acupuncture, P.C., 175 AD3d 1836, 1837 [4th Dept 2019]). In addition, defendant’s “ ’mere hope or speculation’ that further discovery will lead to evidence sufficient to defeat [the Nationwide plaintiffs’] motion is insufficient to warrant denial thereof” (Kaufmann’s Carousel, Inc. v Carousel Ctr. Co. LP, 87 AD3d 1343, 1345 [4th Dept 2011], lv dismissed 18 NY3d 975 [2012], rearg denied 19 NY3d 938 [2012]; see Austin v CDGA Natl. Bank Trust & Canandaigua Natl. Corp., 114 AD3d 1298, 1301 [4th Dept 2014]; see generally CPLR 3212 [f]). In light of our determination, defendant’s cross motion to compel discovery is dismissed as moot (see Clark C.B. v Fuller, 59 AD3d 1030, 1031 [4th Dept 2009]). We therefore reverse the order by granting the motion, dismissing the cross motion, and granting judgment in favor of the Nationwide plaintiffs declaring that they are under no obligation to pay or reimburse any of the subject claims. Present—Whalen, P.J., Peradotto, Troutman and Bannister, JJ.

Law Office of Jason Tenenbaum, P.C. (Jason Tenenbaum and Shaaker Bhuiyan of counsel), for appellant. Zara Javakov, P.C. (Zara Javakov, Esq.), for respondent (no brief filed).

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Michael Gerstein, J.), entered December 12, 2018. The order denied defendant’s motion to consolidate four other actions pending before that court with the instant action and, upon consolidation, to compel the Clerk of the Civil Court to, in effect, deem the notice of appeal filed in the instant action to be a notice of appeal of the consolidated action and to accept an undertaking in the consolidated action.

ORDERED that the appeal is dismissed.

Plaintiff commenced this action to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits. After issue was joined, defendant moved for an order, pursuant to CPLR 602 (a), to consolidate the present action with four other actions pending before the court and, upon consolidation, to, in effect, open its defaults in appearing at trial. By order entered May 8, 2018, the Civil Court denied the branch of defendant’s motion seeking to, in effect, open its defaults and did not reach the branch seeking consolidation of the actions. Defendant has separately appealed from the May 8, 2018 order (see Actual Chiropractic, P.C., as Assignee of Ruben Rodriguez v Global Liberty Ins. Co. of NY, ___ Misc 3d ___, 2020 NY Slip Op _____ [appeal No. 2018-1857 K C], decided herewith). On that appeal, defendant proffered an order of the Supreme Court, Bronx County, entered February 9, 2018, which held, among other things, that all civil lawsuits, judgments and other proceedings “that have been brought or may be brought by . . . Actual Chiropractic, P.C.” seeking no-fault benefits as assignee of Ruben Rodriguez pertaining to the same accident and under the same claim number as those at bar are “permanently stayed.” This court is dismissing that appeal on the ground that any determination therein would not, under the facts therein, have a direct effect upon the parties.

The instant appeal concerns a motion made by defendant in June 2018, pursuant to CPLR [*2]602 (a), to consolidate the present action with four other actions and, upon consolidation, “to have the Clerk of the Civil Court . . . County of Kings, compelled to deem the appeal [of the instant action] . . . to be an appeal of the within joined actions” and to accept an undertaking pertaining to all of the actions. Plaintiff opposed the motion. Defendant appeals from an order of the Civil Court entered December 12, 2018 denying defendant’s motion.

In view of the dismissal of the appeal in Actual Chiropractic, P.C., as Assignee of Ruben Rodriguez v Global Liberty Ins. Co. of NY, ___ Misc 3d ___, 2020 NY Slip Op _____ [appeal No. 2018-1857 K C], decided herewith), this action is no longer a viable pending action with which to consolidate any other actions.

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

WESTON, J.P., ALIOTTA and SIEGAL, JJ., concur.

Law Office of Jason Tenenbaum, P.C. (Jason Tenenbaum and Shaaker Bhuiyan of counsel), for appellant. Zara Javakov, P.C. (Zara Javakov, Esq.), for respondent (no brief filed).

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Rosemarie Montalbano, J.), entered May 8, 2018. The order denied the branch of defendant’s motion seeking to, in effect, open its default in appearing for trial.

ORDERED that the appeal is dismissed.

Plaintiff commenced this action to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits as assignee of Ruben Rodriguez, who was allegedly injured in a motor vehicle accident on December 5, 2013. After issue was joined, counsel from The Law Office of Jason Tenenbaum appeared for defendant for trial, but was told by the Civil Court that his office was not counsel of record, and the matter was adjourned. On the adjourned date, April 20, 2017, the court granted plaintiff’s application to mark the case “inquest clerk” and hold defendant in default. By order to show cause dated May 12, 2017, defendant moved to consolidate the present action with four other actions pending in the Civil Court and, upon consolidation, to, in effect, open its defaults in appearing for trial. Defendant supported the motion with a Supreme Court order of substitution entered May 4, 2017 and a notice of appearance dated April 24, 2017, which lists The Law Office of Jason Tenenbaum, P.C., as the attorney appearing for defendant. By order entered May 8, 2018, the Civil Court denied the branch of defendant’s unopposed motion seeking to, in effect, open its defaults in appearing for trial, finding that defendant had failed to proffer a reasonable excuse for the failure by its incoming counsel to provide “proper proof of its legal representation of defendant.” The Civil Court did not reach the branch of defendant’s motion seeking, pursuant to CPLR 602 (a), consolidation.

On the instant appeal, defendant has annexed to its brief an order of the Supreme Court, Bronx County, entered February 9, 2018, which held, among other things, that all civil lawsuits, judgments and other proceedings “that have been brought or may be brought by . . . Actual [*2]Chiropractic, P.C.” seeking no-fault benefits under the same claim number and regarding the same assignor and motor vehicle accident as in the case at bar are permanently stayed. As a court may take judicial notice “on appeal, of reliable documents, the existence and accuracy of which are not disputed” and, generally, “of matters of public record” (Brandes Meat Corp. v Cromer, 146 AD2d 666, 667 [1989]; see Headley v New York City Tr. Auth., 100 AD3d 700 [2012]), this court, in the interest of judicial economy, takes judicial notice of the Supreme Court’s order entered February 9, 2018, which permanently “stays” the parties from proceeding further in the action at bar.

In light of the stay issued by the Supreme Court, this appeal has “been rendered academic as any determination on [this] appeal[ ] would not, under the facts of this case, have a direct effect upon the parties” (Matter of Claudia G. [Ermelio G.], 71 AD3d 894, 895 [2010]).

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

WESTON, J.P., ALIOTTA and SIEGAL, JJ., concur.

The Rybak Firm, PLLC (Damin J. Toell and Richard Rozhik of counsel), for appellant. Mccormack & Mattei, P.C. (Jamila Shukry and Erin O’Neill of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Joy F. Campanelli, J.), entered February 7, 2018. The order granted the branch of defendant’s motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that plaintiff lacked a license to distribute the medical supplies at issue, and implicitly denied plaintiff’s cross motion for summary judgment.

ORDERED that the order is modified by providing that the branch of defendant’s motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that plaintiff lacked a license to distribute the medical supplies at issue is denied; as so modified, the order is affirmed, without costs, and the matter is remitted to the Civil Court to determine the remaining branches of defendant’s motion.

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, among others, that plaintiff lacked standing to bring the action because it did not possess a license to distribute the products at issue. Plaintiff opposed the motion and cross-moved for summary judgment. By order entered February 7, 2018, the Civil Court granted the branch of defendant’s motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that plaintiff lacked standing to bring the action, and implicitly denied plaintiff’s cross motion. The court stated that defendant’s licensing defense is not precludable and noted that, in two separate orders in a declaratory judgment action, the Supreme Court, Nassau County, had found that plaintiff herein lacked a license to distribute its products. The Civil Court did not reach the remaining branches of defendant’s motion, which sought summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the grounds that plaintiff had failed to appear for duly scheduled examinations under oath and that the limits of the insurance policy had been exhausted.

“The proponent of a summary judgment motion must make a prima facie showing of [*2]entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, tendering sufficient evidence to demonstrate the absence of any material issues of fact” (Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853 [1985]). In an affidavit in support of the branch of defendant’s motion seeking summary judgment on the ground that plaintiff lacked the required license to distribute the supplies at issue, defendant’s medical investigator admitted that plaintiff had obtained a license with the New York City Department of Consumer Affairs on October 12, 2011, and the affidavit of defendant’s claims specialist demonstrated that the supplies had been provided after that date. Thus, defendant’s evidence was insufficient to demonstrate the absence of any material issues of fact (see id.) regarding plaintiff’s licensing. Furthermore, to the extent that the Civil Court considered prior determinations by the Supreme Court, Nassau County, in the declaratory judgment action, as the Supreme Court’s orders pertained to supplies that had been distributed before October 12, 2011, the Civil Court’s reliance on the orders of the Supreme Court was misplaced, and the branch of defendant’s motion based on plaintiff’s alleged lack of a license should have been denied.

Contrary to plaintiff’s assertion, plaintiff was not entitled to summary judgment, as the proof submitted by plaintiff failed to establish that the claims at issue had not been timely denied (see Viviane Etienne Med. Care, P.C. v Country-Wide Ins. Co., 25 NY3d 498 [2015]), or that defendant had issued timely denial of claim forms that were conclusory, vague or without merit as a matter of law (see Westchester Med. Ctr. v Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 78 AD3d 1168 [2010]; Ave T MPC Corp. v Auto One Ins. Co., 32 Misc 3d 128[A], 2011 NY Slip Op 51292[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2011]).

Accordingly, the order is modified by providing that the branch of defendant’s motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that plaintiff lacked a license to distribute the medical supplies at issue is denied, and the matter is remitted to the Civil Court to determine the remaining branches of defendant’s motion.

WESTON, J.P., ALIOTTA and SIEGAL, JJ., concur.

Law Office of Jason Tenenbaum, P.C. (Jason Tenenbaum and Talia Beard of counsel), for appellant. Petre and Associates, P.C. (Damin Toell of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Mary V. Rosado, J.), entered December 14, 2017. The order denied defendant’s motion to vacate an order of that court dated January 20, 2017 granting plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment upon defendant’s failure to timely serve its opposing papers and cross motion as provided for in a stipulation of settlement.

ORDERED that the order entered December 14, 2017 is affirmed, with $25 costs.

Plaintiff commenced this action to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits and subsequently moved for summary judgment. In a stipulation dated April 4, 2016, the parties agreed, among other things, that plaintiff’s summary judgment motion would be adjourned to January 17, 2017, and that “Opposition to the within motion and all cross-motions must be served on or before August 17, 2016. Any cross-motions served beyond this date will be deemed untimely.” On December 16, 2016, defendant served plaintiff with its cross motion, which included its opposition to plaintiff’s motion. Plaintiff opposed the cross motion. By order dated January 20, 2017, the Civil Court granted plaintiff’s motion upon defendant’s default in timely serving its cross motion “as per the stipulation.” Thereafter, defendant moved to, among other things, vacate the January 20, 2017 default order. Plaintiff opposed the motion. By order entered December 14, 2017, the Civil Court denied defendant’s motion, finding that the “motion [is] incomplete” since “defendant[‘s] papers are missing the adjournment stipulation which set up the briefing schedule for the original motion.”

In support of defendant’s appellate contention that its motion to vacate should have been granted, defendant argues that, pursuant to the April 4, 2016 stipulation, its opposition papers and cross motion had to be served on or before “October 16, 2016” [sic], and it is of no consequence [*2]that a copy of the stipulation was not annexed to its papers submitted in support of its motion to vacate the January 20, 2017 order, since the contents of the stipulation are uncontroverted. However, CPLR 2214 (c) clearly provides that “The moving party shall furnish all other papers not already in the possession of the court necessary to the consideration of the questions involved.” As the stipulation was most certainly “necessary to the consideration of the questions involved,” the Civil Court properly denied defendant’s motion to vacate (see CPLR 2214 [c]; Cripps v Dibisceglie, 172 AD3d 1305, 1306 [2019]; Wells Fargo Home Mtge., Inc. v Mercer, 35 AD3d 728 [2006]; Rudzinski v Jonathan L. Glashow, MD, PC, 55 Misc 3d 1215[A], 2017 NY Slip Op 50583[U], *3 [Sup Ct, Kings County 2017]). In any event, defendant failed to establish a reasonable excuse for its default based on law office failure (see CPLR 2005), as it did not “submit supporting facts in evidentiary form sufficient to justify the default” (Incorporated Vil. of Hempstead v Jablonsky, 283 AD2d 553, 554 [2001]).

In view of the foregoing, we pass on no other issue.

Accordingly, the order entered December 14, 2017 is affirmed.

WESTON, J.P., ELLIOT and SIEGAL, JJ., concur.

Lawrence N. Rogak, LLC (Lawrence N. Rogak of counsel), for appellant. The Rybak Firm, PLLC (Damin J. Toell and Karina Barska of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Harriet L. Thompson, J.), entered June 15, 2017. The order denied 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 in the amount of $2,738.52, defendant appeals from an order of the Civil Court which denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

On appeal, defendant argues that the Civil Court lacked “jurisdiction” because defendant is not covered by the provisions of New York Insurance Law § 5107. To the extent that the argument goes to subject matter jurisdiction, it lacks merit. As the complaint seeks to recover a sum of less than $25,000, this action falls within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Civil Court (see CCA 202).

To the extent that defendant asserts lack of personal jurisdiction, there is no need to consider defendant’s claimed lack of contacts with New York since, pursuant to CPLR 3211 (e), an objection to personal jurisdiction is waived unless it is raised in the answer or in a pre-answer motion to dismiss the complaint, whichever comes first (see Hatch v Tu Thi Tran, 170 AD2d 649 [1991]; see also Parasconda v Club Mateem, Inc., 33 Misc 3d 141[A], 2011 NY Slip Op 52201[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2011]). “Absent the pursuit of either course, a defendant’s voluntary participation in litigation in which the point can be raised, in and of itself, constitutes a submission to the jurisdiction of the courts” (Gager v White, 53 NY2d 475, 488 [1981]). Here, defendant first appeared by interposing its answer, in which it raised the affirmative defense that the summons was not properly served, but was silent on the issue of personal jurisdiction due to a lack of a jurisdictional basis for the service. Thus, it waived all personal jurisdiction defenses other than the actual service of process (see Hatch, 170 AD2d at [*2]649; Osserman v Osserman, 92 AD2d 932 [1983]).

Even if we view defendant’s argument on appeal as a claim that, on the merits, there is no liability here because defendant is exempt from Insurance Law § 5107, which requires certain insurers to provide no-fault coverage, defendant failed to demonstrate that its policy did not, in fact, provide for such coverage (see Masigla v Windhaven Ins. Co., 64 Misc 3d 137[A], 2019 NY Slip Op 51169[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2019]). Consequently, defendant did not demonstrate its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law.

Accordingly, the order is affirmed.

WESTON, J.P., ELLIOT and SIEGAL, JJ., concur.

[*1]

Gary Tsirelman, P.C., Brooklyn (Stefan M. Belinfanti of counsel), for appellant.

Bruno, Gerbino & Soriano, LLP, Melville (Nathan M. Shapiro of counsel), for respondent.

Rivkin Radler, LLP, Uniondale (Barry I Levy of counsel), for amici curiae.

Order, Appellate Term, First Department, entered January 2, 2018, which reversed an order of the Civil Court, New York County (Erika M. Edwards, J.), entered on or about November 30, 2016, denying the petition to vacate a master arbitrator’s award and confirming the award, and remanded the matter to Civil Court for a framed issue hearing on whether the policy limit was exhausted before petitioner became obligated to pay respondent’s claims, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Generally, courts will not set aside an award where “there is a rational view to support it” (Country-Wide Ins. Co. v May, 282 AD2d 298, 298 [1st Dept 2001]; see also Matter of Carty v Nationwide Ins. Co., 212 AD2d 462 [1st Dept 1995]). However, in addition to irrationality, an award may be vacated if the arbitrator exceeds his or her power (see CPLR 7511 [b] [1] [iii]). An arbitrator exceeds his/her power if the award is “beyond the policy limits” (Matter of Brijmohan v State Farm Ins. Co., 92 NY2d 821, 823 [1998]; see also e.g. Countrywide Ins. Co. v Sawh, 272 AD2d 245 [1st Dept 2000]).

Respondent contends that its claims were complete before the policy issued by petitioner was exhausted. This argument is unavailing. The Court of Appeals has interpreted the word “claims” in 11 NYCRR 65-3.15 to mean “verified claims” (Nyack Hosp. v General Motors Acceptance Corp., 8 NY3d 294, 300 [2007]), i.e., claims as to which the healthcare provider has submitted additional information requested by the insurer (see id. at 297-298, 300-301). Petitioner requested verification in the form of an examination under oath (EUO). Since respondent never appeared for an EUO, its claims were never verified. The defense that an award exceeds an arbitrator’s power is so important that a party may introduce evidence for the first time when the other party tries to confirm the award (see Brijmohan, 92 NY2d at 822-823).

Respondent may also raise on appeal the purely legal argument that Appellate Term lacked the power to remand to Civil Court for a framed issue hearing (see generally Branham v Loews Orpheum Cinemas, Inc., 31 AD3d 319, 323 n 2 [1st Dept 2006], affd 8 NY3d 931 [2007]). On the merits, however, this argument is unavailing (see Allstate Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v Northeast Anesthesia & Pain Mgt., 51 Misc 3d 149[A], 2016 NY Slip Op 50828[U] [App Term, 1st Dept 2016]; Allstate Ins. Co. v DeMoura, 30 Misc 3d 145[A], 2011 NY Slip Op 50430[U] [App Term, 1st Dept 2011]).

In view of the foregoing, respondent is not entitled to the attorneys’ fees it requested. Concur—Gische, J.P., Mazzarelli, Webber, Gesmer, JJ. [Prior Case History: 58 Misc 3d 144(A), 2017 NY Slip Op 51911(U).]

CV-6239-18/HU
C. Stephen Hackeling, J.

Upon the following papers numbered 1 to 20 read on this motion to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint by Notice of Motion/Order to Show Cause and supporting papers 1,2,6; Notice of Cross Motion and supporting papers 7,8,13; Answering Affidavits and supporting papers 7,8,13; Replying Affidavits and supporting papers 14-18,20; Filed papers; Other exhibits: 3-5,9-12,19; (and after hearing counsel in support of and opposed to the motion), it is,

ORDERED that the motion by defendant to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(3), on the ground that plaintiff lacks legal capacity to sue in the State of New York, pursuant to BCL §1312(a), is denied, with prejudice; and it is further

ORDERED that the alternative motion by defendant to compel discovery and a deposition of plaintiff, is denied; and it is further

ORDERED that the cross-motion by plaintiff for summary judgment pursuant to CPLR 3212, and plaintiff’s request for an order pursuant to CPLR 3212(g), are both denied.

Plaintiff health service provider, a limited liability corporation,^[FN1] seeks reimbursement of No-Fault benefits in the sum of $7,943.11, as assignee of a New York No-Fault claimant, for medical and surgical services rendered to its Brooklyn assignor, at its New Jersey surgical center on 05/04/2018, stemming from an automobile accident of 1/08/2018.

Plaintiff lists its address as 6 Chestnut Ridge Road, Montvale, New Jersey 07645 on the summons, and the submitted, uncertified medical records (see CPLR 4518) not objected to by defendant, show the same address as the location of the surgery rendered on 5/04/2018.

Defendant now moves for dismissal pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) (3), arguing that plaintiff lacks standing to bring this action in the State of New York, because plaintiff has failed to register with the Secretary of State in New York to operate as a foreign corporation authorized to do business in New York, pursuant to BCL §1312(a). Defendant asserts plaintiff is a New Jersey corporation whose business activities within New York State are so systematic and regular as to manifest continuity of activity,^[FN2] and contends that online data activity demonstrates that plaintiff has over 627 pending cases against insurance companies in the New York State court system.

Alternatively, defendant moves pursuant to CPLR 3101 for an order compelling plaintiff to appear for deposition, to address the issue of plaintiff’s legal capacity to sue in the State of New York.^[FN3]

In opposition to the motion to dismiss, plaintiff denies it qualifies as a foreign corporation required to register with the New York Secretary of State to operate as a foreign corporation doing business in New York, stating its contact with the State of New York is “incidental” and not “systematic” as claimed by defendant. Plaintiff asserts a denial of its right to sue in a New York State Court, based upon an assignment of a New York No-Fault claim, is a violation of the interstate commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution.

Plaintiff further contends that plaintiff’s assignor is a New York resident (living in Brooklyn), who assigned his New York No-Fault contract to plaintiff, who brought the instant suit to collect for unpaid medical services rendered to plaintiff’s assignor at its New Jersey medical facility.

In addition, plaintiff cross-moves for summary judgment for the sums delineated in the complaint, contending it timely provided its claim to defendant, thirty days have since transpired, and defendant has not paid or denied the claim.

In the alternative, plaintiff seeks an order pursuant to CPLR 3212(g), stating that plaintiff [*2]has met its prima facie case in the event of trial.

In opposition to plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, defendant contends that contrary to plaintiff’s statement, defendant has denied the claim within 30 days of its receipt, and attaches documents of proof in support of this contention.

Here, the Court determines that defendant has failed to satisfy its burden of demonstrating that plaintiff was a foreign corporation “doing business” in the State of New York, and was thereby subject to the registering conditions placed by BCL §1312 on foreign corporate capacity to sue in New York (see Pergament Home Ctrs. v Net Realty Holding Trust, 171 AD2d 736 [2nd Dept 1991]). Though there is no admissible proof that plaintiff is a New Jersey Corporation, plaintiff asserts in its complaint that it is a LLC. and has a New Jersey address. Plaintiff also asserts its business contact with the State of New York is “incidental” and not “systematic.” In addition, defendant contends that plaintiff is a New Jersey business, which plaintiff does not deny.

Therefore, the Court determines that defendant has failed to overcome the presumption that plaintiff is doing business in its state of incorporation, and not in the State of New York (see Highfill, Inc. v Bruce and Iris, Inc., 50 AD3d 742 [2nd Dept 2008]).

The Court further finds that there is no proof that plaintiff maintains an office or phone listing, or owns real property or has employees or sales reps, in the State of New York (see Uribe v Merchants Bank of New York, 266 AD2d 21, 22 [1st Dept 1999]; see also S & T Bank v Spectrum Cabinet Sales, Inc., 247 AD2d 373 [2nd Dept 1998]).

Indeed, though defendant broadly links over 627 pending cases in the State of New York court system brought by plaintiff against insurance companies, as evidence of plaintiff’s New York systemic activities, the linkage is disingenuous and unavailing. First, defendant’s proof is by inadmissible hearsay. Next, plaintiff’s activities in the State of New York, appear to be limited to collection lawsuits from assignments under New York’s No-Fault law, brought in New York courts for unpaid medical services rendered in its business as a health service provider and surgical center in the State of New Jersey.

Moreover, the instant action does not equate to an assignment of a collection of account receivables for consumer debt purchased by a plaintiff, for enforcement through the New York State court system (see Centurion Capital Corp. v Guarino, 35 Misc 3d 1219[A][Civ Ct, City of New York, 2012]), nor an assignment to recover money for goods sold in New York by an out-of-state (Pennsylvania) corporation (see S & T Bank v Spectrum Cabinet Sales, Inc., supra]).

The Court finds that the undisputed facts remain that plaintiff is a health service provider and surgical center, rendering services at its health care facility located in New Jersey, which requires incidental litigation for collection of its unpaid charging fees in the courts of the State of New York, where entrance as a plaintiff is contemplated through assignments under New York’s No-Fault law. It is not as a corporate entity whose actual business is as a systematic purchaser of assignments for collection enforcement in the courts of the State of New York.

The Court notes that even if plaintiff was required to register as a foreign corporation doing business in the State of New York, it is not a jurisdictional defect, and does not defeat the action, as a plaintiff may cure the failure to obtain a certificate pursuant to BCL §1312 at any time prior to resolution of the action by judgment (see Uribe v Merchants Bank of New York, supra; Hot Roll Mfg. Co. v Cerone Equipment Co., 38 AD2d 339 [3rd Dept, 1972]; see also Virgilio Flores, S.A. v Jerome Radelman, Inc., 567 F. Supp 577 [1982]). As a result, the instant circumstances do not create a true legal incapacity to sue within the meaning of CPLR 3211[a][3] [*3](see Paper Manufacturers Co. v Ris Paper Co., 86 Misc 2d 95 [City of New York, Civ Ct, 1976]).

Accordingly, the motion by defendant to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(3), on the ground that plaintiff lacks legal capacity to sue in the State of New York pursuant to BCL §1312(a), is denied, with prejudice.

Defendant’s alternative motion to compel discovery and a deposition of plaintiff “if defendant (sic) disputes that it lacks capacity to sue” is denied. The issue of plaintiff’s legal capacity to sue under BCL §1312(a) is now moot, given the Court’s instant ruling, thereby eliminating the need for defendant’s request for discovery and deposition for this purpose. Supervision of discovery and the setting of reasonable terms and conditions rests within the sound discretion of the Court (see Hernandez v City of Yonkers,74 AD3d 1025, 1026 [2nd Dept 2010]). Accordingly, defendant’s alternative motion to compel discovery and a deposition of plaintiff, is denied.

Plaintiff’s cross-motion for summary judgment pursuant to CPLR 3212, upon the grounds that defendant has failed to pay or deny the bills within 30 days of receipt of plaintiff’s claim or properly toll the time, for dates of service on 05/04/18, is denied (see 11 NYCRR 65-3.8[a][1]). Defendant has refuted plaintiff’s contentions with documents demonstrating that it timely provided a denial of claim to plaintiff,^[FN4] thereby creating a question of fact on this issue requiring a trial (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]).

Furthermore, the Court finds that plaintiff has failed to demonstrate a prima facie case in support of summary judgment, as the necessary element provided by the Assignment of Benefits form submitted by plaintiff’s assignor, states it is for an accident which occurred on 3/19/18, not the subject accident of 1/08/18 (see Alvarez v Prospect Hospital, supra; Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr.,supra; Zuckerman v City of New York, supra).

Any remaining contentions lack merit.

The foregoing constitutes the decision and order of this Court.

Dated: January 20, 2020

J.D.C.

Footnotes

Footnote 1:Though defendant claims plaintiff is a New Jersey corporation, there is no admissible evidence substantiating this claim.

Footnote 2:Defendant’s papers are contradictory, in that paragraph 10 of the affirmation in support of the motion states plaintiff did not do any business in New York, while paragraph 13 states plaintiff has been doing large amounts of New York business. Furthermore, defendant states in paragraph 18 that plaintiff lists a New York business address, which is clearly false, as demonstrated by the New Jersey address listed in the summons and the lack of any other address listed in any other papers.

Footnote 3:Defendant’s Notice of Motion seeks an order compelling plaintiff to appear for deposition, only, but its affirmation supports discovery of plaintiff (¶ 3) and documentary discovery (¶ 20), on the issue of plaintiff’s legal capacity to sue in the State of New York.

Footnote 4:In paragraph 12 of the Affirmation in Support, Defendant cites Amer-A-Med Health Products, Inc. v GEICO Ins. Co., 2010 NY Slip Op 32258(U)(Sup Ct Nass Cty). However, the correct cite is 2010 NY Slip Op 31032, and the case does not stand for the proposition “that foreign No-Fault providers must comply with BCL §1312(a).”

The Rybak Firm, PLLC (Damin J. Toell and Richard Ruzhik of counsel), for appellant. Rivkin Radler, LLP (J’Naia L. Boyd of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Richard J. Montelione, J.), entered November 3, 2017. The order granted defendant’s motion to vacate an order of that court (Robin Kelly Sheares, J.) dated August 12, 2016 granting plaintiff’s prior unopposed motion for summary judgment, and upon such vacatur, to deny plaintiff’s prior motion and grant defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, to the extent of vacating the August 12, 2016 order and the judgment entered January 10, 2017 pursuant thereto, and, in effect, denying plaintiff’s prior motion and “reinstat[ing]” an October 27, 2016 order of that court (Robin S. Garson, J.) granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

ORDERED that the order entered November 3, 2017 is reversed, with $30 costs, and the matter is remitted to the Civil Court for a new determination of defendant’s motion to vacate the August 12, 2016 default order, and, upon such vacatur, to deny plaintiff’s prior motion for summary judgment and grant defendant summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, plaintiff served a motion for summary judgment on October 7, 2015, returnable on November 9, 2015, which, by stipulation, was adjourned to August 12, 2016. On December 23, 2015, while [*2]plaintiff’s motion was pending, defendant served a motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, returnable on January 25, 2016, which, by stipulation, was adjourned to October 26, 2016. On August 12, 2016, despite defendant’s request for an adjournment of plaintiff’s motion to the return date of defendant’s own pending motion for summary judgment, presumably so that the motions could be decided together, the Civil Court (Robin Kelly Sheares, J.) granted plaintiff’s unopposed motion for summary judgment. Three days later, on August 15, 2016, plaintiff served opposition papers to defendant’s still-pending motion for summary judgment, which plaintiff denominated as “Defendant’s cross-motion”; those papers also referenced and purported to further support “plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment.”

By order to show cause signed on October 20, 2016, defendant moved to vacate the August 12, 2016 order granting plaintiff’s unopposed motion for summary judgment and, upon such vacatur, to deny plaintiff’s prior motion and grant defendant summary judgment dismissing the complaint. While that motion was pending, the Civil Court (Robin S. Garson, J.), by order entered October 27, 2016, granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. On January 10, 2017, a default judgment was entered awarding plaintiff the principal sum of $2,418.95, based upon the August 12, 2016 order. On August 18, 2017, plaintiff served opposition papers to defendant’s October 20, 2016 motion. Defendant subsequently served reply papers, attaching the October 27, 2016 order granting its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. By order entered November 3, 2017, the Civil Court (Richard J. Montelione, J.) granted defendant’s motion to the extent of vacating the August 12, 2016 order and the January 10, 2017 judgment entered pursuant thereto, and, in effect, denying plaintiff’s prior motion and “reinstat[ing]” the October 27, 2016 order granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, giving it “full force and effect.”

In order to vacate a default order or judgment pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a) (1), a defendant must demonstrate both a reasonable excuse for the default and a potentially meritorious defense to the action (see Li Fen Li v Cannon Co., Inc., 155 AD3d 858 [2017]; Aurora Loan Servs., LLC v Ahmed, 122 AD3d 557 [2014]). Here, in the November 3, 2017 order, the Civil Court relied on the October 27, 2016 order, which awarded summary judgment to defendant, to find that defendant had a potentially meritorious defense to the action sufficient to warrant the vacatur of the August 12, 2016 order.

A grant of summary judgment is the procedural equivalent of a trial (see Falk v Goodman, 7 NY2d 87, 91 [1959]; News Am. Mktg., Inc. v Lepage Bakeries, Inc., 16 AD3d 146 [2005]), and an order granting such relief is as final and as conclusively determinative of all issues in an action as is a judgment after trial (see Engel v Aponte, 51 AD2d 989 [1976]; Riley v Southern Transp. Co., 278 App Div 605 [1951]). Here, the grant of summary judgment to plaintiff by order dated August 12, 2016 was a final determination of the action. Therefore, the Civil Court should not have issued its October 27, 2016 order granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment, since it should not even have entertained that motion, as that motion did not seek to vacate the August 12, 2016 order granting plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment upon defendant’s default. Consequently, it was error for the Civil Court, in its November 3, 2017 order, [*3]to rely on the October 27, 2016 order—which purported to award defendant summary judgment after plaintiff had already been awarded summary judgment on August 12, 2016—and to find, by virtue of the October 27, 2016 order, that defendant had established a meritorious defense, in order to grant the branch of defendant’s motion seeking to vacate the August 12, 2016 order (and, in effect, the January 10, 2017 judgment entered pursuant thereto). Rather, the Civil Court should have made its own independent assessment of the merits of the branch of defendant’s motion seeking to vacate the August 12, 2016 order based on the facts submitted in those motion papers in order to determine whether the default should be vacated and, if so, whether upon such vacatur, the branch of defendant’s motion seeking summary judgment should be granted.

Accordingly, the order entered November 3, 2017 is reversed and the matter is remitted to the Civil Court for a new determination of defendant’s motion to vacate the August 12, 2016 default order and, upon such vacatur, to deny plaintiff’s prior motion for summary judgment and grant defendant summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

WESTON, J.P., ALIOTTA and SIEGAL, JJ., concur.

Jaffe & Velazquez, LLP (Jean H. Kang of counsel), for appellant. Gabriel & Shapiro, LLC (Lenard Brumfield, Esq.), for respondent (no brief filed).

Appeal from an order of the District Court of Suffolk County, Third District (James F. Matthews, J.), dated November 2, 2017. The order granted the petition in a CPLR 7511 proceeding to vacate a master arbitrator’s award dated December 19, 2016, and, upon such vacatur, in effect, confirmed the arbitrator’s award and awarded attorney’s fees to petitioner.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with $25 costs, and the matter is remitted to the District Court for further proceedings consistent herewith.

After a provider’s claims for assigned first-party no-fault benefits had been denied based on the provider’s “failure to cooperate” at an examination under oath, and upon “improper kickbacks,” “improper fee splitting,” “improper fee scheduling” and “billing for services not rendered,” the provider submitted the claims to arbitration pursuant to Insurance Law § 5106 (b). Following a hearing, the arbitrator found that the provider had established its prima facie case which the insurer had failed to rebut, and awarded the provider the monies it sought. The insurer appealed the award to the master arbitrator who, by an award dated December 19, 2016, vacated the arbitrator’s award and remitted the matter for a hearing before a new arbitrator. The provider then commenced this proceeding to vacate the master arbitrator’s award, pursuant to CPLR 7511 (1) (b) (iii), on the ground that the master arbitrator had exceeded his power. The insurer opposed the petition and requested that the master arbitrator’s award be confirmed. The District [*2]Court, by order dated November 2, 2017, from which the insurer appeals, found that there was a rational basis for the original arbitrator’s award, that the master arbitrator had “exceeded his statutory authority,” granted the petition, vacated the master arbitrator’s award, and, upon such vacatur, “reinstated” the original arbitrator’s award, and awarded attorney’s fees to the provider.

The scope of judicial review of a master arbitrator’s award is limited to whether the master arbitrator exceeded his power (see Matter of Smith [Firemen’s Ins. Co.], 55 NY2d 224 [1982]; Matter of Petrofsky [Allstate Ins. Co.], 54 NY2d 207 [1981]). The role of a master arbitrator “is to review the arbitrator’s determination to assure that it was reached in a rational manner and that the decision was not arbitrary and capricious. It does not include the power to review, de novo, the matter originally presented to the arbitrator” (Matter of Allstate Ins. Co. v Keegan, 201 AD2d 724, 725 [1994]; see also Matter of Petrofsky [Allstate Ins. Co.], 54 NY2d 207; Matter of Progressive Cas. Ins. Co. [Elite Med. Supply of NY, LLC], 162 AD3d 1471, 1472 [2018]). A master arbitrator exceeds his statutory power by making factual determinations, by reviewing factual and procedural errors committed at the original arbitration hearing, by weighing the evidence, or by resolving issues of credibility (see Matter of Smith [Firemen’s Ins. Co.], 55 NY2d 224; Matter of Richardson v Prudential Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 230 AD2d 861 [1996]; Matter of Allstate Ins. Co. v Keegan, 201 AD2d at 725).

Here, the master arbitrator vacated the arbitrator’s award based on “[t]he rational and what appears to [sic] insufficient evidence presented,” which necessarily involves a review of the facts by the master arbitrator (see e.g. Matter of Allstate Ins. Co. v Keegan, 201 AD2d at 725). Upon our review of the record, we find that there was a rational basis for the original arbitrator’s award. Consequently, the master arbitrator exceeded his authority by reviewing, de novo, factual issues already determined by the original arbitrator (see Matter of Richardson v Prudential Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 230 AD2d 861). We, thus, affirm the order of the Civil Court which vacated the master arbitrator’s award and, in effect, confirmed the arbitrator’s award (see CPLR 7511 [b] [1] [iii]; 7510).

Furthermore, the provider is entitled to recover reasonable attorney’s fees for this appeal (see 11 NYCRR § 65-4.10 [j] [4]; Acuhealth Acupuncture, P.C. v Country-Wide Ins. Co., 170 AD3d 1168, 1169 [2019]; Matter of GEICO Ins. Co. v AAAMG Leasing Corp., 148 AD3d 703, 705 [2017]). Therefore, the matter is remitted to the District Court to determine the provider’s reasonable attorney’s fees for this appeal (see Acuhealth Acupuncture, P.C. v Country-Wide Ins. Co., 170 AD3d at 1168).

Accordingly, the order is affirmed and the matter is remitted to the District Court for further proceedings relating to attorney’s fees.

It is noted that a proceeding to vacate or to confirm an arbitrator’s award is a special proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 4 and should, therefore, terminate in a judgment rather than an order (see CPLR 411).

ADAMS, P.J., TOLBERT and GARGUILO, JJ., concur.