June 4, 2010

Ema Acupuncture, P.C. v Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co. (2010 NY Slip Op 50995(U))

https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/ema-acupuncture-p-c-v-lumbermens-mut-cas-co-2010-ny-slip-op-50995u/

Court: Appellate Term, Second Department
Decided: June 4, 2010
Citation: 2010 NY Slip Op 50995(U) · 27 Misc 3d 141(A)
Posture: Summary judgment
Outcome: Provider prevailed
Issues: Declaratory judgment, res judicata Defaults and vacatur

Cite as

Ema Acupuncture, P.C. v Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co., 27 Misc 3d 141(A), 2010 NY Slip Op 50995(U) (App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2010)

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.

A dismissal for want of prosecution under CPLR 3216 does not bar a new action on res judicata grounds unless it specifies otherwise. After the insurer served a 90-day demand and moved to dismiss the provider's Queens County action, the provider commenced a Kings County action on the same cause of action. The first action was dismissed on default without specifying that dismissal was on the merits. Under CPLR 3216 (a), that dismissal was neither on the merits nor with prejudice and did not preclude the new action between the same parties. The Appellate Term, Second Department, reversed the order granting the insurer summary judgment and denied its motion.

Reported in New York Official Reports at Ema Acupuncture, P.C. v Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co. (2010 NY Slip Op 50995(U))

[*1]

Ema Acupuncture, P.C. v Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co.

2010 NY Slip Op 50995(U) [27 Misc 3d 141(A)]

Decided on June 4, 2010

Appellate Term, Second Department

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

As corrected in part through November 4, 2011; it will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on June 4, 2010

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

APPELLATE TERM: 2nd, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS

PRESENT: : PESCE, P.J., WESTON and GOLIA, JJ
2009-714 K C.

Ema Acupuncture, P.C. a/a/o VITO SUSCA, Appellant,

against

Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Company, Respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Robin S. Garson, J.), entered December 18, 2009. The order granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

ORDERED that the order is reversed without costs and defendant’s motion for summary judgment is denied.

Plaintiff commenced an action in Civil Court, Queens County, to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits for services provided to its assignor between February 5, 2002 and April 12, 2002. Issue was joined in July 2003. In August 2007, defendant served plaintiff with a 90-day demand pursuant to CPLR 3216 (b) (3). On papers dated January 9, 2008 and returnable February 4, 2008, defendant moved to dismiss the Queens County action for want of prosecution (CPLR 3216 [a]). On January 23, 2008, plaintiff, without responding to the motion to dismiss, commenced the instant action by filing a summons and complaint (see CCA 400), subsequently amended, in Civil Court, Kings County, based on the same cause of action. On February 4, 2008, the court (Diane A. Lebedeff, J.) granted the motion to dismiss the Queens County action, on default, but without any indication that the dismissal was on the merits (see CPLR 3216 [a]). Defendant subsequently moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint in the instant action on the ground of res judicata, citing the Queens County dismissal order. The Civil Court granted the motion, and plaintiff appeals.

Since the dismissal order did not “specif[y] otherwise” (CPLR 3216 [a]), the dismissal was not “on the merits” or “with prejudice” (Yonkers Contr. Co. v Port Auth. Trans-Hudson Corp., 93 NY2d 375, 380 [1999]; e.g. Gallo v Teplitz Tri-State Recycling, 254 AD2d 253, 254 [1998]) and does not preclude, on res judicata grounds, a new action between the same parties for the same cause of action (e.g. Greenberg v De Hart, 4 NY2d 511, 516-517 [1958]; San Filippo v Adler, 278 AD2d 402 [2000]; see also Mudry v Giannattasio, 8 AD3d 455, 456 [2004]; Morales v New York City Hous. Auth., 302 AD2d 571 [2003]; Mays v Whitfield, 282 AD2d 721 [2001]). Accordingly, the order granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is reversed and the motion denied.

Pesce, P.J., Weston and Golia, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: June 04, 2010

Similar decisions

Magnezit Med. Care, P.C. v Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co. (2010 NY Slip Op 51054(U))A dismissal for want of prosecution under CPLR 3216 does not bar a new action on res judicata grounds unless it specifies otherwise.
Roman Chiropractic, P.C. v Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co. (2011 NY Slip Op 52090(U))A dismissal for want of prosecution does not bar a new action on res judicata grounds unless it specifies dismissal on the merits.
A.B. Med. Servs., PLLC v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. (2010 NY Slip Op 50702(U))The providers' prior discovery dismissal did not bar a second action because it was not with prejudice and no preclusion order appeared.
Downtown Acupuncture, P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (2008 NY Slip Op 51552(U))The provider's prior discovery dismissal did not bar a second action because it did not constitute a determination on the merits.
IMA Acupuncture, P.C. v Hertz Co. (2016 NY Slip Op 50258(U))The provider's no-fault action was barred by a default declaratory judgment establishing that the insurer owed no payment for the accident.