January 31, 2020

Charles Deng Acupuncture, P.C. v Windhaven Ins. Co. (2020 NY Slip Op 50176(U))

https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/charles-deng-acupuncture-p-c-v-windhaven-ins-co-2020-ny-slip-op50176u/

Court: Appellate Term, Second Department
Decided: January 31, 2020
Citation: 2020 NY Slip Op 50176(U)
Posture: Summary judgment
Outcome: Provider prevailed
Issues: Jurisdiction and service Policy issues

Cite as

Charles Deng Acupuncture, P.C. v Windhaven Ins. Co., 2020 NY Slip Op 50176(U) (App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2020)

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 insurer waived its lack-of-contacts jurisdictional defense and failed to show that its policy lacked no-fault coverage. The insurer argued that Insurance Law § 5107 did not apply to it. Civil Court nevertheless had subject matter jurisdiction under CCA 202 because the amount sought was below its monetary limit. Under CPLR 3211 (e), the answer preserved improper service but waived other personal-jurisdiction defenses by omitting lack of a jurisdictional basis for service. Even treating the argument as a coverage defense, the insurer did not establish that its policy lacked no-fault coverage. The Appellate Term, Second Department, affirmed denial of the insurer's summary judgment motion.

Reported in New York Official Reports at Charles Deng Acupuncture, P.C. v Windhaven Ins. Co. (2020 NY Slip Op 50176(U))

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

Charles Deng Acupuncture, P.C., as Assignee of Jackson, Vicki, Respondent,
against
Windhaven Insurance Company, Appellant.

Lawrence N. Rogak, LLC (Lawrence N. Rogak of counsel), for appellant. The Rybak Firm, PLLC (Damin J. Toell and Karina Barska of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Harriet L. Thompson, J.), entered June 15, 2017. The order denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with $25 costs.

In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits in the amount of $2,738.52, defendant appeals from an order of the Civil Court which denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

On appeal, defendant argues that the Civil Court lacked “jurisdiction” because defendant is not covered by the provisions of New York Insurance Law § 5107. To the extent that the argument goes to subject matter jurisdiction, it lacks merit. As the complaint seeks to recover a sum of less than $25,000, this action falls within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Civil Court (see CCA 202).

To the extent that defendant asserts lack of personal jurisdiction, there is no need to consider defendant’s claimed lack of contacts with New York since, pursuant to CPLR 3211 (e), an objection to personal jurisdiction is waived unless it is raised in the answer or in a pre-answer motion to dismiss the complaint, whichever comes first (see Hatch v Tu Thi Tran, 170 AD2d 649 [1991]; see also Parasconda v Club Mateem, Inc., 33 Misc 3d 141[A], 2011 NY Slip Op 52201[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2011]). “Absent the pursuit of either course, a defendant’s voluntary participation in litigation in which the point can be raised, in and of itself, constitutes a submission to the jurisdiction of the courts” (Gager v White, 53 NY2d 475, 488 [1981]). Here, defendant first appeared by interposing its answer, in which it raised the affirmative defense that the summons was not properly served, but was silent on the issue of personal jurisdiction due to a lack of a jurisdictional basis for the service. Thus, it waived all personal jurisdiction defenses other than the actual service of process (see Hatch, 170 AD2d at [*2]649; Osserman v Osserman, 92 AD2d 932 [1983]).

Even if we view defendant’s argument on appeal as a claim that, on the merits, there is no liability here because defendant is exempt from Insurance Law § 5107, which requires certain insurers to provide no-fault coverage, defendant failed to demonstrate that its policy did not, in fact, provide for such coverage (see Masigla v Windhaven Ins. Co., 64 Misc 3d 137[A], 2019 NY Slip Op 51169[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2019]). Consequently, defendant did not demonstrate its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law.

Accordingly, the order is affirmed.

WESTON, J.P., ELLIOT and SIEGAL, JJ., concur.

ENTER:
Paul Kenny
Chief Clerk
Decision Date: January 31, 2020

Cited in this decision

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

Masigla v Windhaven Ins. Co. (2019 NY Slip Op 51169(U)) FollowedThe insurer waived its jurisdictional defense based on lack of New York contacts by pleading only improper service in its answer.

Similar decisions

Charles Deng Acupuncture, P.C. v American Ind. Ins. Co. (2022 NY Slip Op 50563(U))The insurer's motion to dismiss the no-fault complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction was granted on appeal.
Charles Deng Acupuncture, P.C. v 21st Century Ins. Co. (2018 NY Slip Op 51815(U))The insurer failed to prove that Florida law applied or that admissible payment records established exhaustion of policy limits.
Charles Deng Acupuncture, P.C. v Allstate Ins. Co. (2019 NY Slip Op 51693(U))Both summary judgment motions were denied because neither side established the requisite showing concerning the insurer's denials.
Charles Deng Acupuncture, P.C. v Nationwide Ins. (2022 NY Slip Op 50580(U))The provider's arguments against the insurer's summary judgment motion were unpreserved because they were raised for the first time on appeal.
Charles Deng Acupuncture, P.C. v Zurich Am. Ins. Co. (2018 NY Slip Op 51554(U))The insurer's cross motion for summary judgment was upheld because its proof established that it had issued no policy covering the loss.