• 347-746-6001
  • contact@beynensonlaw.com
Beynenson Law
Beynenson Law
    • Search
    • No-Fault AI
    • New Decisions
    • Legal Questions
    • No-Fault Regulations
    • Arbitrator Scorecard
    • Award Volume
    • Arbitrator / Carrier Data
    • Provider / Carrier Data
    • Provider / Attorney Data
    • Arbitration Pro Extension
  • About Us
  • Contact
  • East Hampton, New York

  • 347-746-6001
  • contact@beynensonlaw.com
    • Search
    • No-Fault AI
    • New Decisions
    • Legal Questions
    • No-Fault Regulations
    • Arbitrator Scorecard
    • Award Volume
    • Arbitrator / Carrier Data
    • Provider / Carrier Data
    • Provider / Attorney Data
    • Arbitration Pro Extension
  • About Us
  • Contact
February 8, 2017

Alleviation Med. Servs., P.C. v Hertz Co. (2017 NY Slip Op 50210(U))

https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/alleviation-med-servs-p-c-v-hertz-co-2017-ny-slip-op-50210u/

Court
Appellate Term, Second Department
Decided
February 8, 2017
Citation
2017 NY Slip Op 50210(U) · 54 Misc 3d 143(A)
Posture
Default or vacatur
Outcome
Insurer prevailed
Issues
Defaults and vacatur Declaratory judgment, res judicata
Legal questions
Effect of insurer's declaratory judgment (see the maps)
Cite as
Alleviation Med. Servs., P.C. v Hertz Co., 54 Misc 3d 143(A), 2017 NY Slip Op 50210(U) (App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2017)

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 defendant established an excusable default and a meritorious defense based on a prior declaratory judgment barring the provider's claims. Counsel's illness and substitute counsel's accident-related delay excused the missed calendar call under CPLR 5015 (a) and CPLR 2005. The court took judicial notice of a Supreme Court order declaring no obligation to pay benefits arising from the accident and permanently staying the provider's no-fault claims, although the defendant had not annexed it to its motion. Default judgments can have res judicata effect. The Appellate Term, Second Department, reversed, vacated the default order, dismissed the provider's summary judgment motion, permanently stayed the action and remitted for determination of the remaining branches of the defendant's motion.

Reported in New York Official Reports at Alleviation Med. Servs., P.C. v Hertz Co. (2017 NY Slip Op 50210(U))

[*1]
Alleviation Med. Servs., P.C. v Hertz Co.
2017 NY Slip Op 50210(U) [54 Misc 3d 143(A)]
Decided on February 8, 2017
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 February 8, 2017
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 2d, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS

PRESENT: : WESTON, J.P., ALIOTTA and ELLIOT, JJ.
2015-2379 K C

Alleviation Medical Services, P.C., as Assignee of Keeshan Harley, Respondent,

against

Hertz Co., Appellant.


Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Steven Z. Mostofsky, J.), entered February 25, 2015. The order denied defendant’s motion to, among other things, vacate a prior order of the same court (Wavny Toussaint, J.) entered September 24, 2013 granting, on default, plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment.

ORDERED that the order entered February 25, 2015 is reversed, with $30 costs, the branch of defendant’s motion seeking to vacate the order entered September 24, 2013 is granted, plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is dismissed, plaintiff’s action is permanently stayed, and the matter is remitted to the Civil Court for a determination of the remaining branches of defendant’s motion.

Plaintiff Alleviation Medical Services, P.C. commenced this action on January 12, 2012 to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits for services it had provided to its assignor, Keeshan Harley, as a result of injuries he had allegedly sustained in a motor vehicle accident on May 18, 2011. After issue was joined, plaintiff moved for summary judgment, and, by order entered September 24, 2013, its motion was granted on default. In November 2013, defendant Hertz Co. moved to, among other things, vacate the September 24, 2013 order and for sanctions. Defendant asserted that it had an excuse of law office failure for its default, in that its attorney was ill and the other attorney who was covering her appearance on plaintiff’s motion was delayed due to an accident and missed the calendar call. Defendant contended that it also had a meritorious defense to the action, in that an order issued by the Supreme Court on April 30, 2013 in a declaratory judgment action granted defendant’s motion for a default judgment and declared that defendant was not obligated to pay no-fault benefits to plaintiff, among other providers, for services arising out of the motor vehicle accident that had occurred on May 18, 2011 and involved Keeshan Harley. It is undisputed that the Supreme Court order had been served on plaintiff on July 16, 2013. By order entered February 25, 2015, the Civil Court denied defendant’s motion on the ground that defendant had failed to establish a meritorious defense since it did not “annex the alleged order to its moving papers.”

Defendant demonstrated that it had a reasonable excuse of law office failure for its default in appearing at the calendar call on plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (see CPLR 5015 [a]; 2005; U.S. Bank, N.A. v Bukobza, 142 AD3d 1070 [2016]; Needleman v Tornheim, 106 AD3d 707 [2013]; Atlantic Radiology Imaging, P.C. v Interboro Mut. Ins. Co., 52 Misc 3d 135[A], 2016 NY Slip Op 51031[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2016]).

With respect to a meritorious defense (see CPLR 5015 [a]), the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel are designed to put an end to a matter once it has been duly decided (see [*2]Siegel, NY Prac § 442, at 772 [5th ed]). Res judicata, or claim preclusion, is invoked when a party seeks to relitigate a disposition on the merits of claims, or causes or action, arising out of the same transaction or a series of transactions which were raised or could have been raised in a prior litigation (see Matter of Hunter, 4 NY3d 260, 269 [2005]; Schuylkill Fuel Corp. v Nieberg Realty Corp., 250 NY 304, 306-307 [1929]). It is well settled that default judgments can have res judicata effect (see Lazides v P & G Enters., 58 AD3d 607 [2009]; Ava Acupuncture, P.C. v NY Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 34 Misc 3d 149[A], 2012 NY Slip Op 50233[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2012]). Here, in light of the Supreme Court’s order declaring that defendant has no obligation to pay no-fault benefits to plaintiff, and that all no-fault lawsuits and claims by plaintiff are permanently stayed, of which order we take judicial notice (see Kingsbrook Jewish Med. Ctr. v Allstate Ins. Co., 61 AD3d 13 [2009]; Matter of Khatibi v Weill, 8 AD3d 485 [2004]; Matter of Allen v Strough, 301 AD2d 11 [2002]; Renelique v State-Wide Ins. Co., 50 Misc 3d 137[A], 2016 NY Slip Op 50096[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2016]), defendant has demonstrated that it possesses a meritorious defense to the action (see Omphil Care, Inc. v Hertz Co., 48 Misc 3d 131[A], 2015 NY Slip Op 51052[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2015]).

Accordingly, the order entered February 25, 2015 is reversed, the branch of defendant’s motion seeking to vacate the order entered September 24, 2013 is granted, plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is dismissed, plaintiff’s action is permanently stayed, and the matter is remitted to the Civil Court for a determination of the remaining branches of defendant’s motion.

Weston, J.P., Aliotta and Elliot, JJ., concur.


Decision Date: February 08, 2017

Legal questions

A question of no-fault law this decision rules on, from our Legal Questions pages. Bars count the decisions on the question by year and court, coloured by category; circles are this decision and the decisions on the question it cites or that cite it. Point at a bar or circle for details. The categories and summaries are Beynenson Law’s classification, made by a language model and checked by a second reading.

Effect of insurer's declaratory judgment

Open the full map

Does an insurer’s no-coverage declaratory judgment, or pending declaratory action, bar or stay a no-fault claimant’s action?

This decision: The DJ is given preclusive effect and bars every claim in the action that the court considered

Held that a judicially noticed default declaratory judgment, declaring that the insurer owed the provider nothing for the accident and permanently staying its suits, was a meritorious defense requiring vacatur of the provider's default summary judgment.

  • Appellate DivisionApp Div 2
  • Appellate TermApp Term 126
  • Trial courtsTrial 24
2021, Appellate Division: 1 decision (1 Stayed pending DJ)2025, Appellate Division: 1 decision (1 Barred by DJ)2023, Appellate Term: 7 decisions (5 Barred by DJ, 1 Not bound: parties, 1 DJ does not reach)2022, Appellate Term: 11 decisions (9 Barred by DJ, 1 DJ does not reach, 1 Stay denied)2021, Appellate Term: 11 decisions (8 Barred by DJ, 2 Not bound: parties, 1 DJ does not reach)2020, Appellate Term: 10 decisions (8 Barred by DJ, 1 Not bound: parties, 1 DJ does not reach)2019, Appellate Term: 13 decisions (7 Barred by DJ, 3 Not bound: parties, 1 DJ does not reach, 2 Stay denied)2018, Appellate Term: 10 decisions (6 Barred by DJ, 2 Not bound: parties, 2 DJ does not reach)2017, Appellate Term: 5 decisions (3 Barred by DJ, 2 DJ does not reach)2016, Appellate Term: 15 decisions (13 Barred by DJ, 1 Not bound: parties, 1 DJ does not reach)2015, Appellate Term: 14 decisions (11 Barred by DJ, 1 Not bound: parties, 2 DJ does not reach)2014, Appellate Term: 4 decisions (4 Barred by DJ)2013, Appellate Term: 3 decisions (1 Barred by DJ, 1 DJ does not reach, 1 Stayed pending DJ)2012, Appellate Term: 3 decisions (2 Barred by DJ, 1 Not bound: parties)2011, Appellate Term: 2 decisions (1 Barred by DJ, 1 DJ does not reach)2010, Appellate Term: 1 decision (1 Not bound: parties)2009, Appellate Term: 1 decision (1 Barred by DJ)2008, Appellate Term: 1 decision (1 Not bound: parties)2024, Appellate Term: 3 decisions (1 Not bound: parties, 2 DJ does not reach)2025, Appellate Term: 11 decisions (1 Barred by DJ, 1 Barred in part, 1 Not bound: parties, 8 DJ does not reach)2026, Appellate Term: 1 decision (1 Not bound: parties)2023, Trial courts: 1 decision (1 DJ does not reach)2022, Trial courts: 3 decisions (2 Barred by DJ, 1 Not bound: parties)2021, Trial courts: 4 decisions (4 Barred by DJ)2020, Trial courts: 1 decision (1 Barred by DJ)2019, Trial courts: 1 decision (1 Barred by DJ)2018, Trial courts: 1 decision (1 Barred by DJ)2013, Trial courts: 2 decisions (2 Barred by DJ)2011, Trial courts: 2 decisions (1 Barred by DJ, 1 Stayed pending DJ)2008, Trial courts: 1 decision (1 Not bound: parties)2007, Trial courts: 2 decisions (1 Barred by DJ, 1 Stayed pending DJ)2006, Trial courts: 1 decision (1 Not bound: parties)2024, Trial courts: 2 decisions (1 Barred by DJ, 1 DJ does not reach)2026, Trial courts: 3 decisions (3 Barred by DJ)This decision
2010201520202025
Barred by DJBarred in partNot bound: partiesDJ does not reachStayed pending DJStay deniedThis decisionCites it or cited by itCited or followed

Of the 152 decisions on this question in the Second Department courts and the Court of Appeals, 98 (this one included) are in the same category.

Cited in this decision

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

  • Atlantic Radiology Imaging, P.C. v Interboro Mut. Ins. Co. (2016 NY Slip Op 51031(U))The insurer established a reasonable law-office-failure excuse and a meritorious defense warranting vacatur of its summary judgment default.
  • Ava Acupuncture, P.C. v NY Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. (2012 NY Slip Op 50233(U))An unvacated default declaratory order barring no-fault benefits is a final determination that can preclude a provider's action under res judicata.
  • Kingsbrook Jewish Med. Ctr. v Allstate Ins. Co. (2009 NY Slip Op 00351)Judicially noticed diagnosis codes alone do not establish that treatment was wholly unrelated to an insured automobile accident.
  • Renelique v State-Wide Ins. Co. (2016 NY Slip Op 50096(U))An unpleaded res judicata defense may support summary judgment absent surprise or prejudice to the opposing party.
  • Omphil Care, Inc. v Hertz Co. (2015 NY Slip Op 51052(U)) FollowedA default declaration of no-fault nonliability has res judicata effect even before service with notice of entry.

Similar decisions

  • Ahava Med. Diagnostic, P.C. v Hertz Co. (2022 NY Slip Op 50298(U))A prior no-coverage declaratory judgment retains its binding effect even if notice of entry is served after a provider's default judgment.
  • IMA Acupuncture, P.C. v Hertz Co. (2016 NY Slip Op 50258(U))The provider's no-fault action was barred by a default declaratory judgment establishing that the insurer owed no payment for the accident.
  • Maiga Prods. Corp. v Hertz Co. (2018 NY Slip Op 51448(U))The self-insurer obtained dismissal based on a later declaratory judgment despite failing to establish timely, proper EUO denials below.
  • Blano Med., P.C. v Hertz Co. (2023 NY Slip Op 51406(U))The defendant failed to prove that another entity was the proper defendant or that it was self-insured, defeating amendment and dismissal.
  • Quality Health Supply Corp. v Hertz Co. (2020 NY Slip Op 50996(U))The defendant failed to support substitution of a different entity or show that a declaratory judgment barred the provider's claims.
Beynenson Law

Tech-driven New York no-fault collections for healthcare providers.

About the firm

Contact

  • East Hampton, New York

  • 347-746-6001
  • contact@beynensonlaw.com
  • Contact form

Case Law

  • Search
  • No-Fault AI
  • New Decisions
  • Legal Questions
  • No-Fault Regulations

Arbitration Data

  • Arbitrator Scorecard
  • Award Volume
  • Arbitrator / Carrier Data
  • Provider / Carrier Data
  • Provider / Attorney Data
  • Arbitration Pro Extension

©2026 The Beynenson Law Firm, PC. Terms of Use Privacy Policy

Site by khrystev.dev

Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. This website provides general information, not legal advice, and using it does not create an attorney-client relationship. Do not send confidential information through this site.