December 3, 2010

Five Boro Psychological, P.C. v Travelers Prop. Cas. Ins. Co. (2010 NY Slip Op 52122(U))

Headnote

The main issue in this case was whether the defendant's motion to consolidate 82 other cases with the present case should be granted. The court considered the fact that the plaintiff had already obtained summary judgment in the present case and had been awarded a specific sum of money. The court found that there had been a final adjudication on the merits in the present case, and therefore, there was no longer a pending action with which other actions could be consolidated. As a result, the court denied the defendant's motion for consolidation. The holding of the court was that the order denying the defendant's motion for consolidation was affirmed, and no other issues were addressed.

Reported in New York Official Reports at Five Boro Psychological, P.C. v Travelers Prop. Cas. Ins. Co. (2010 NY Slip Op 52122(U))

Five Boro Psychological, P.C. v Travelers Prop. Cas. Ins. Co. (2010 NY Slip Op 52122(U)) [*1]

Five Boro Psychological, P.C. v Travelers Prop. Cas. Ins. Co.

2010 NY Slip Op 52122(U) [29 Misc 3d 140(A)]

Decided on December 3, 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As corrected in part through November 4, 2011; it will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 December 3, 2010

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

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

PRESENT: : STEINHARDT, J.P., PESCE and WESTON, JJ
2009-1476 K C.

Five Boro Psychological, P.C. as Assignee of JOSE LUIS SANTOS, Respondent,
against
Travelers Property Casualty Ins. Co., Appellant.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Robin S. Garson, J.), entered May 29, 2009. The order denied defendant’s motion for consolidation, and, upon consolidation, for other relief.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with $10 costs.

In this Civil Court, Kings County, action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, defendant moved to consolidate 82 other cases then pending in the Civil Court, Kings County, all of which were commenced by the same provider against defendant or its various property casualty affiliates and subsidiaries, with this case and, upon consolidation, for other relief. The court denied defendant’s motion, and this appeal by defendant ensued.

In opposition to the motion, plaintiff established that on November 5, 2007, prior to the date that defendant brought the motion that gave rise to the instant appeal, the Civil Court had issued an order granting plaintiff summary judgment in this action and awarding it the sum of $1,078.32, together with applicable statutory interest, attorney’s fees, costs and disbursements. In view of the foregoing, there has been a final adjudication on the merits in this action (see QFI, Inc. v Shirley, 60 AD3d 656 [2009]; Methal v City of New York, 50 AD3d 654 [2008]). Thus, there was no longer a pending action with which other actions could be consolidated pursuant to CPLR 602 (a) (see Fischer v RWSP Realty, LLC, 53 AD3d 595 [2008]). Accordingly, the order denying defendant’s motion for consolidation is affirmed. We pass on no other issue.

Steinhardt, J.P., Pesce and Weston, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: December 03, 2010