August 8, 2025
Burke Physical Therapy, P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (2025 NY Slip Op 51513(U))
https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/burke-physical-therapy-p-c-v-state-farm-mut-auto-ins-co-2025-ny-slip-op-51513u/
- Decided
- August 8, 2025
- Citation
- 2025 NY Slip Op 51513(U)
- Posture
- Default or vacatur
- Outcome
- Insurer prevailed
- Legal questions
- Vacating a default: excuse and defense (see the maps)
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.
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 ยง 431. |
| This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports. |
Decided on August 8, 2025
PRESENT: : WAVNY TOUSSAINT, P.J., MARINA CORA MUNDY, LISA S. OTTLEY, JJ
2024-70 K C
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
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.
Did the defaulting party show a reasonable excuse (or lack of notice) and a potentially meritorious defense or claim?
This decision: Excuse (or lack of actual notice under CPLR 317) and potentially meritorious defense or claim shown; default vacated or late answer allowed
Held the trial court providently exercised its discretion in opening the insurer's default and compelling the provider to accept its amended answer.
Of the 170 decisions on this question in the Second Department courts and the Court of Appeals, 67 (this one included) are in the same category.
Similar decisions
- Burke 2 Physical Therapy, P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (2025 NY Slip Op 50840(U))The insurer's cross motion for summary judgment based on the provider's failure to supply verification was upheld on appeal.
- Comprehensive Care Physical Therapy, P.C. v State-Wide Ins. Co. (2017 NY Slip Op 51448(U))The insurer's affirmation established the provider's failure to appear for EUOs on the five claims at issue on appeal.
- New York Manual, P.T., P.C. v Nationwide Affinity Ins. Co. of Am. (2023 NY Slip Op 50281(U))The provider failed to raise a triable issue that it supplied requested verification or reasonably justified noncompliance.
- All Boro Psychological Servs., P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (2014 NY Slip Op 51787(U))The insurer's affidavits established timely mailing of EUO notices and denials and the provider's failure to appear.
- Actual Chiropractic, P.C. v State Farm Ins. (2019 NY Slip Op 50421(U))An insurer need not state objective reasons for requesting EUOs to establish entitlement to summary judgment for nonappearance.