April 13, 2018

Healing Art Acupuncture, P.C. v 21st Century Ins. Co. (2018 NY Slip Op 50583(U))

Headnote

The relevant facts considered by the court in this case include a provider's motion for summary judgment to recover first-party no-fault benefits. The defendant did not oppose the motion with an affidavit or an attorney's affirmation in the Civil Court, but presented orders of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, in a declaratory judgment action initiated by the defendant. The Supreme Court orders granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment and a separate motion for a default judgment against plaintiff's assignor, concluding that there was no coverage for no-fault benefits due to an alleged staged incident. Subsequently, the Civil Court denied the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment based on the orders in the Supreme Court declaratory judgment action. The main issue decided in this case was whether the defendant had a duty to provide coverage for the accident at issue and if plaintiff's motion for summary judgment should be granted. The holding of the case was that the Civil Court's denial of the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment was affirmed, and upon a search of the record, defendant was awarded reverse summary judgment, dismissing the complaint. This was based on the finding that the defendant had established its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law.

Reported in New York Official Reports at Healing Art Acupuncture, P.C. v 21st Century Ins. Co. (2018 NY Slip Op 50583(U))

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

Healing Art Acupuncture, P.C., as Assignee of Mabel Castillo, Appellant,
against
21st Century Insurance Company, Respondent.

Headley v New York City Tr. Auth., 100 AD3d 700, 701 [2012]; see Matter of Oak Tree Realty Co., LLC v Board of Assessors, 71 AD3d 1027 [2010]; Kingsbrook Jewish Med. Ctr. v Allstate Ins. Co., 61 AD3d 13 [2009]; Matter of Khatibi v Weill, 8 AD3d 485 [2004]; Brandes Meat Corp. v Cromer, 146 AD2d 666, 667 [1989]).

Consequently, in light of the Supreme Court’s orders and declaratory judgment, of which we take judicial notice, we find that the Civil Court properly denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment under the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel (see EBM Med. Health Care, P.C. v Republic W. Ins., 38 Misc 3d 1, 3 [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2012]), as any judgment in favor of plaintiff in the present action would destroy or impair rights or interests established by the judgment in the declaratory judgment action (see Schuylkill Fuel Corp. v Nieberg Realty Corp., 250 NY 304, 306-307 [1929]; Flushing Traditional Acupuncture, P.C. v Kemper Ins. Co., 42 Misc 3d 133[A], 2014 NY Slip Op 50052[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2014]), and, upon a search of the record, we find that defendant established its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. In view of the foregoing, we reach no other issue.

Accordingly, the Civil Court’s order is affirmed and, upon a search of the record, defendant is awarded reverse summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

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

ENTER:
Paul Kenny
Chief Clerk
Decision Date: April 13, 2018