August 8, 2025

Burke Physical Therapy, P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (2025 NY Slip Op 51513(U))

Headnote

In this case, the court considered the procedural aspects of the defendant's motion to open its default and compel the plaintiff to accept an amended answer regarding a claim for assigned first-party no-fault benefits. The main issues addressed were whether the defendant's default should be opened and whether the plaintiff should be compelled to accept the defendant’s amended answer. The court found that the Civil Court acted within its discretion in granting the defendant's requests as there were no compelling reasons against such actions. The holding affirmed the lower court's order, thereby allowing the defendant to proceed with the amended answer and opening the default.

Reported in New York Official Reports at Burke Physical Therapy, P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (2025 NY Slip Op 51513(U))

[*1]

Burke Physical Therapy, P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.

2025 NY Slip Op 51513(U)

Decided on August 8, 2025

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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 August 8, 2025

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

PRESENT: : WAVNY TOUSSAINT, P.J., MARINA CORA MUNDY, LISA S. OTTLEY, JJ
2024-70 K C

Burke Physical Therapy, P.C., as Assignee of Vega-Bou, Joshua, Appellant,

against

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., Respondent.

The Rybak Firm, PLLC (Damin J. Toell and Richard Rozhik of counsel), for appellant. Rivkin Radler, LLP (Stuart M. Bodoff of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Sandra E. Roper, J.), dated January 12, 2024. The order, insofar as appealed from as limited by the brief, granted the branches of defendant’s motion seeking to open its default and to compel plaintiff to accept defendant’s amended answer.

ORDERED that the order, insofar as appealed from, is affirmed, with $25 costs.

In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, plaintiff appeals, as limited by the brief, from so much of an order of the Civil Court (Sandra E. Roper, J.) as granted the branches of defendant’s motion seeking to open its default and to compel plaintiff to accept defendant’s amended answer.

Contrary to plaintiff’s contentions, we find that the Civil Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in granting the branches of defendant’s motion seeking to open its default and to compel plaintiff to accept defendant’s amended answer (see Arroyo v Starrett City, Inc., 170 AD3d 929 [2019]; Lyubomirsky v Lubov Arulin, PLLC, 125 AD3d 614 [2015]).

Accordingly, the order, insofar as appealed from, is affirmed.

TOUSSAINT, P.J., MUNDY and OTTLEY, JJ., concur.

ENTER:
Paul Kenny
Chief Clerk
Decision Date: August 8, 2025