June 1, 2021

American Tr. Ins. Co. v Espinal (2021 NY Slip Op 03399)

Headnote

The case of American Tr. Ins. Co. v Espinal involved a motion for summary judgment in a case where the plaintiff sought a declaration that they were not obligated to pay no-fault benefits to the defendant, Samuel O. Espinal. The defendant had timely filed opposition to the summary judgment motion in accordance with CPLR 2214 (b). However, the motion court had granted the plaintiff's motion on the ground that the defendant failed to submit opposition papers, without considering the merits of the motion. Therefore, the main issue decided was whether the matter should be remanded for the motion court to consider the merits of the summary judgment motion. The holding of the Appellate Division, First Department was that the matter should be remanded for further proceedings for the motion court to consider the merits of the summary judgment motion in the first instance.

Reported in New York Official Reports at American Tr. Ins. Co. v Espinal (2021 NY Slip Op 03399)

American Tr. Ins. Co. v Espinal

2021 NY Slip Op 03399 [195 AD3d 401]

June 1, 2021

Appellate Division, First Department

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

As corrected through Wednesday, August 4, 2021

[*1]

American Transit Insurance Company, Respondent,
v
Samuel O. Espinal, Appellant, et al., Defendants.

The Tadchiev Law Firm, P.C., Fresh Meadows (Simon B. Landsberg of counsel), for appellant.

Law Office of Daniel J. Tucker, Brooklyn (Ethan A. Rothschild of counsel), for respondent.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Nancy M. Bannon, J.), entered on or about August 14, 2020, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment against defendant Samuel O. Espinal and declared that plaintiff was not obligated to pay no-fault benefits to Espinal, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the order vacated, and the matter remanded for further proceedings.

Espinal’s opposition to the summary judgment motion was timely filed in accordance with CPLR 2214 (b). Since the motion court granted plaintiff’s motion on the ground that Espinal failed to submit opposition papers, and therefore did not reach the merits of the motion, the matter is remanded for the motion court to consider the merits of the summary judgment motion in the first instance (see Fomina v DUB Realty, LLC, 156 AD3d 539, 540 [1st Dept 2017]; Commissioner of the State Ins. Fund v Weissman, 90 AD3d 417, 418 [1st Dept 2011]). Concur—Gische, J.P., Webber, Singh, Kennedy, JJ. [Prior Case History: 2020 NY Slip Op 31721(U).]