September 8, 2021

Columbus Imaging Ctr. v Country Wide Ins. Co. (2021 NY Slip Op 50851(U))

https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/columbus-imaging-ctr-v-country-wide-ins-co-2021-ny-slip-op50851u/

Court: Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County
Judge: Wendy Changyong Li, J.
Decided: September 8, 2021
Citation: 2021 NY Slip Op 50851(U)
Posture: Summary judgment
Outcome: Insurer prevailed
Issues: Declaratory judgment, res judicata
Legal questions: Effect of insurer's declaratory judgment (see the maps)

Cite as

Columbus Imaging Ctr. v Country Wide Ins. Co., 2021 NY Slip Op 50851(U) (Civ Ct, Queens County 2021)

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 provider's action was barred by an unvacated default declaratory judgment establishing that the insurer owed no no-fault benefits. The Civil Court, Queens County, granted the insurer's unopposed summary judgment motion and dismissed the complaint on res judicata grounds. In an action naming the provider and assignor, Supreme Court had declared that the insurer need not pay current or future claims under the policy because of the assignor's EUO nonappearance. The parties and subject matter were identical, and a recovery would adversely affect rights established by that judgment. The default judgment remained a conclusive final determination because the provider's default had not been vacated.

Reported in New York Official Reports at Columbus Imaging Ctr. v Country Wide Ins. Co. (2021 NY Slip Op 50851(U))

Columbus Imaging Center A/A/O Javier, Plaintiff(s),
against
Country Wide Insurance Company, Defendant(s).

CV-711495-18/QU

Plaintiff’s counsel:
Baker & Cantin P.C.
63-36 99th Street
Rego Park, NY 11374

Defendant’s counsel:
Jaffe & Koumourdas LLP
40 Wall Street, 12th Floor
New York, NY 10005
Wendy Changyong Li, J.

I. Papers

The following papers were read on Defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing Plaintiff’s complaint:

Papers Numbered

Defendant’s Notice of Motion and Affirmation dated February 14, 2020 (“Motion”) and file stamped by the court on March 3, 2020 1

II. Background

In a summons and complaint filed August 23, 2018, Plaintiff sued Defendant insurance company to recover $1,837.68 in unpaid first party No-Fault benefits for medical services provided to Plaintiff’s assignor Javier for injuries sustained in an automobile accident, plus attorneys’ fees and statutory interest (see Motion, Aff. of Kang, Ex. A). In a summons and [*2]complaint dated and filed on November 5, 2018, Defendant commenced an action in Supreme Court, New York County (“Supreme Court Action“) against Javier, Plaintiff, and other nonparty medical service providers, seeking a judgment declaring that Defendant owed no duty to pay No Fault claims arising from Javier’s automobile accident because Javier failed to appear for scheduled examinations under oath (“EUO“) (see Motion, Kang Aff., Ex. C). On September 16, 2019, Defendant moved in the Supreme Court Action for a default judgment against all defendants, including Javier and Plaintiff (see Motion, Kang Aff., Ex. F). In an order dated December 17, 2019 and entered December 19, 2019, Supreme Court granted Defendant’s motion for a default judgment and declared that Defendant was “not required to provide, pay or honor any current or future claim for no-fault benefits” under Defendant’s policy to Javier (Country-Wide Ins. Co. v Javier, Sup. Ct. NY County, December 17, 2019, K., J., Index No. 655488/18; Motion, Kang Aff., Ex. E). Defendant now moved for summary judgment dismissing Plaintiff’s complaint on the ground that the action is barred by res judicata. Plaintiff did not oppose Defendant’s motion.

III. Discussion

“Under the doctrine of res judicata, a party may not litigate a claim where a judgment on the merits exists from a prior action between the same parties involving the same subject matter” (Matter of Hunter, 4 NY3d 260, 269 [2005], see Simmons v Trans Express Inc., 37 NY3d 107, 111 [2021]; Matter of Josey v Goord, 9 NY3d 386, 389 [2007]; Healthway Med. Care, P.C. v American Tr. Ins. Co., 54 Misc 3d 127[A], 2016 NY Slip Op 51786[U] *1 [App Term 2d Dept 2016]; Infinity Chiropractic Health, P.C. v Republic W. Ins. Co., 53 Misc 3d 144[A], 2016 NY Slip Op 51564[U] *1 [App Term 2d Dept 2016]). “Once a claim is brought to a final conclusion, all other claims arising out of the same transaction or series of transactions are barred, even if based upon different theories or if seeking a different remedy” (Simmons v Trans Express Inc., 37 NY3d at 111; O’Brien v City of Syracuse, 54 NY2d 353, 357 [1981], see Matter of Josey v Goord, 9 NY3d at 390; Tracey v Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co., 187 AD3d 815, 817 [2d Dept 2020]).

The parties and subject matter in the instant matter and the Supreme Court Action are identical (Healthway Med. Care, P.C. v American Tr. Ins. Co., 2016 NY Slip Op 51786[U] *1). Any judgment in Plaintiff’s favor in our instant action would adversely affect the rights and interests created by the judgment in the Supreme Court Action (Metro Health Prods., Inc. v Nationwide Ins., 55 Misc 3d 142[A], 2017 NY Slip Op 50607[U] *2 [App Term 2d Dept 2017]; Healthway Med. Care, P.C. v American Tr. Ins. Co., 2016 NY Slip Op 51786[U] *2). Thus res judicata bars Plaintiff’s action (Active Care Med. Supply Corp. v American Commerce Ins. Co., 54 Misc 3d 128[A], 2016 NY Slip Op 51813[U] *2 [App Term 2d Dept 2016]; Infinity Chiropractic Health, P.C. v Republic W. Ins. Co., 2016 NY Slip Op 51564[U] *1). Here, Judge K. rendered an order in the Supreme Court Action deciding Defendant in our instant case was “not required to provide, pay or honor any current or future claim for no-fault benefits” under Defendant’s policy to Plaintiff’s assignor, Javier (Motion, Kang Aff., Ex. E at 4). Therefore, Defendant is entitled to summary judgment dismissing Plaintiff’s complaint (Metro Health Prods., Inc. v Nationwide Ins., 2017 NY Slip Op 50607[U] *1; Active Care Med. Supply Corp. v American Commerce Ins. Co., 2016 NY Slip Op 51813[U] *2; Atlantic Chiropractic, P.C. v Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 52 Misc 3d 137[A], 2016 NY Slip Op 51072[u] *2 [App Term 2d Dept 2016]). Even though Supreme Court entered judgment on Plaintiff’s default in the Supreme Court Action, the judgment constitutes a conclusive final determination because Plaintiff’s [*3]default in the Supreme Court action has not been vacated (Active Care Med. Supply Corp. v American Commerce Ins. Co., 2016 NY Slip Op 51813[U] *2; Infinity Chiropractic Health, P.C. v Republic W. Ins. Co., 2016 NY Slip Op 51564[U] *1).

IV. Order

Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that Defendant’s motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint is granted and Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed; and it is further

ORDERED that the part clerk is directed to dispose the index number for all purposes.

This constitutes the Decision and Order of the court.

Dated: September 8, 2021
Queens County Civil Court
Honorable Wendy Changyong Li, J.C.C.

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 the provider's action barred by res judicata because an unvacated default DJ against the provider and assignor declared the insurer owed no current or future no-fault benefits for the assignor's accident.

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.

Healthway Med. Care, P.C. v American Tr. Ins. Co. (2016 NY Slip Op 51786(U)) FollowedThe provider's claims were barred by res judicata because a prior declaration resolved coverage for the same accident between the same parties.
Infinity Chiropractic Health, P.C. v Republic W. Ins. Co. (2016 NY Slip Op 51564(U)) FollowedA default declaratory judgment against a provider bars its assigned claims even without service on or a declaration against the assignor.
Metro Health Prods., Inc. v Nationwide Ins. (2017 NY Slip Op 50607(U)) FollowedThe provider's action was barred by res judicata because a default declaratory judgment established the insurer's nonliability for the same claims.
Active Care Med. Supply Corp. v American Commerce Ins. Co. (2016 NY Slip Op 51813(U)) FollowedAn unvacated default declaratory judgment order can bar a provider's no-fault action under res judicata without a notice of entry.
Atlantic Chiropractic, P.C. v Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co. (2016 NY Slip Op 51072(U))An entered default declaratory judgment barring no-fault coverage has preclusive effect even without service of notice of entry.

Similar decisions

Dos Manos Chiropractic, P.C. v State Farm Ins. Co. (2022 NY Slip Op 50995(U))An unvacated default declaratory judgment precludes a provider's benefits action involving the same parties and accident under res judicata.
Fine Needle Acupuncture P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (2022 NY Slip Op 50873(U))The provider was collaterally estopped from contesting its EUO nonappearance by a prior order denying its motion to compel arbitration.
Parisien v Avis Budget Car Rental, LLC (2022 NY Slip Op 50883(U))The insurer failed to establish res judicata because party identity was unproved, and its check did not establish payment of the claim.
Total Chiropratic P.C. v Mercury Cas. Ins. Co. (2021 NY Slip Op 50142(U))The provider's claims were barred by an unvacated default declaratory judgment determining coverage against both provider and assignor.
Sutter Pharmacy v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (2021 NY Slip Op 50610(U))The insurer's late, successive summary judgment motion was granted based on a subsequent declaratory judgment barring coverage.