April 13, 2010

A.B. Med. Servs., PLLC v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. (2010 NY Slip Op 50702(U))

https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/a-b-med-servs-pllc-v-new-york-cent-mut-fire-ins-co-2010-ny-slip-op50702u/

Court: Appellate Term, Second Department
Decided: April 13, 2010
Citation: 2010 NY Slip Op 50702(U) · 27 Misc 3d 132(A)
Posture: Motion to dismiss (CPLR 3211)
Outcome: Provider prevailed
Issues: Declaratory judgment, res judicata Discovery and procedure

Cite as

A.B. Med. Servs., PLLC v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 27 Misc 3d 132(A), 2010 NY Slip Op 50702(U) (App Term, 2d Dept, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2010)

Posture, outcome, issues and treatment by other decisions are Beynenson Law’s classification. Treatment labels are assigned by a language model reading the citing decision; negative and appeal-history labels are checked by a second reader.

Summary

Editorial summary by Beynenson Law, not part of the court’s decision.

The providers' prior discovery dismissal did not bar a second action because it was not with prejudice and no preclusion order appeared. The Appellate Term, Second Department, affirmed the denial of the insurer's pre-answer motion to dismiss under CPLR 3211 (a) (5). The insurer asserted res judicata based on dismissal of an identical action under CPLR 3126 (3) for failure to comply with a discovery order. Following Maitland v Trojan Elec. & Mach. Co., such a dismissal does not determine the merits unless it is with prejudice or the plaintiff's proof is effectively closed by preclusion or summary judgment. The prior dismissal and record did not establish that bar.

Reported in New York Official Reports at A.B. Med. Servs., PLLC v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. (2010 NY Slip Op 50702(U))

[*1]

A.B. Med. Servs., PLLC v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co.

2010 NY Slip Op 50702(U) [27 Misc 3d 132(A)]

Decided on April 13, 2010

Appellate Term, Second Department

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on April 13, 2010

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

APPELLATE TERM: 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS

PRESENT: : NICOLAI, P.J., TANENBAUM and LaCAVA, JJ
2009-556 N C.

A.B. Medical Services, PLLC, D.A.V. CHIROPRACTIC, P.C. and LVOV ACUPUNCTURE, P.C. a/a/o KENNY CALLENDER, Respondents,
against
New York Central Mutual Fire Insurance Company, Appellant.

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

Cited in this decision

A label shows how this decision treated the case it cites.

Downtown Acupuncture, P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (2008 NY Slip Op 51552(U)) FollowedThe provider's prior discovery dismissal did not bar a second action because it did not constitute a determination on the merits.

Similar decisions

A.B. Med. Servs., PLLC v Travelers Indem. Co. (2012 NY Slip Op 50246(U))A sua sponte order is not appealable as of right, and the providers had not obtained leave to appeal the dismissal of their complaint.
A.B. Med. Servs., PLLC v Country-Wide Ins. Co. (2009 NY Slip Op 51130(U))The providers' medical biller failed to establish admissibility of the supporting documents, defeating their motion for summary judgment.
A.B. Med. Servs., PLLC v Geico Cas. Ins. Co. (2010 NY Slip Op 50224(U))The provider could not obtain a CPLR 3212 (g) finding establishing its prima facie case because its billing affidavit did not establish admissibility.
First Help Acupuncture, P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (2008 NY Slip Op 51266(U))The provider's second action was barred by res judicata because the prior discovery dismissal was with prejudice.
A.B. Med. Servs., PLLC v American Tr. Ins. Co. (2009 NY Slip Op 51261(U))The providers failed to establish a prima facie case because their billing manager's affidavit did not establish admissible business records.