March 15, 2017

High Definition MRI, P.C. v Mapfre Ins. Co. of N.Y. (2017 NY Slip Op 01800)

https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/high-definition-mri-p-c-v-mapfre-ins-co-of-n-y-2017-ny-slip-op01800/

Court: Appellate Division, First Department
Decided: March 15, 2017
Citation: 2017 NY Slip Op 01800 · 148 AD3d 470
Posture: Other motion
Outcome: Insurer prevailed
Issues: Discovery and procedure

Cite as

High Definition MRI, P.C. v Mapfre Ins. Co. of N.Y., 148 AD3d 470 (1st Dept 2017)

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 198 unrelated no-fault claims were properly severed because they presented no common issues of fact or law. The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed an order on reargument adhering to severance under CPLR 603 and extending the provider's time to commence separate Civil Court actions. Although the order purported to deny reargument, it was appealable because it addressed the merits. Fraudulent incorporation supplied no common issue because the insurer stated it would not pursue that defense. A stay was also properly denied because adjudication of the separate contract claims did not depend on determination of the declaratory judgment cause of action.

Reported in New York Official Reports at High Definition MRI, P.C. v Mapfre Ins. Co. of N.Y. (2017 NY Slip Op 01800)

High Definition MRI, P.C. v Mapfre Ins. Co. of N.Y.

2017 NY Slip Op 01800 [148 AD3d 470]

March 15, 2017

Appellate Division, First Department

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

As corrected through Wednesday, May 3, 2017

[*1]

High Definition MRI, P.C., Appellant,
v
Mapfre Insurance Company of New York, Respondent.

D’Agostino, Levine, Landesman & Lederman LLP, New York (Bruce H. Lederman of counsel), for appellant.

Bruno, Gerbino & Soriano, LLP, Melville (Nathan Shapiro of counsel), for respondent.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Manuel J. Mendez, J.), entered on or about July 14, 2016, which granted plaintiff’s motion for reargument of defendant’s motion to sever the breach of contract cause of action or, in the alternative, for a stay of the severance order pending appeal, only to the extent of extending plaintiff’s time to commence separate actions in Civil Court for the 198 claims asserted in the breach of contract cause of action, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Although the order on reargument purported to deny plaintiff’s motion to reargue defendant’s severance motion, it is appealable, because the court addressed the merits of the motion, in effect, granting it and adhering to the original determination (see Jackson v Leung, 99 AD3d 489, 490 [1st Dept 2012]).

The court properly severed the breach of contract cause of action, since the 198 unrelated no-fault claims asserted therein raise no common issues of fact or law (see CPLR 603; Radiology Resource Network, P.C. v Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co., 12 AD3d 185 [1st Dept 2004]). Plaintiff’s contention that the defense of fraudulent incorporation presents common factual and legal issues that predominate is unavailing, since defendant has made clear that it does not intend to pursue that defense.

The court properly denied plaintiff’s motion for a stay, since adjudication of the separate breach of contract claims in Civil Court is not dependent on a determination of the declaratory judgment cause of action (see Hunter v Hunter, 10 AD2d 937 [1st Dept 1960]). Concur—Acosta, J.P., Renwick, Moskowitz, Feinman and Gesmer, JJ. [Prior Case History: 2016 NY Slip Op 31336(U).]

Cited in this decision

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

Radiology Resource Network, P.C. v Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co. (2004 NY Slip Op 07960) FollowedThe provider's 68 assigned claims were properly severed because individual issues predominated and a joint trial risked confusion.

Cited by

State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v Sweetwater Chiropractic, P.C. (2018 NY Slip Op 51177(U))The insurers failed to show that EUOs were reasonably required for the provider's claims involving thirteen assignors.

Similar decisions

Ocean Diagnostics Imaging P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (2006 NY Slip Op 50913(U))The provider's claims from 11 separate accidents were properly severed because the defenses raised few common issues of law or fact.
Comprehensive MRI of N.Y., P.C. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. (2014 NY Slip Op 50128(U))Conflicting medical expert opinions raised a triable issue of fact concerning the medical necessity of the provider's services.
Westchester Radiology & Imaging, P.C. v GEICO Cas. Co. (2019 NY Slip Op 51703(U))The insurer was entitled to sever six assignors' claims arising from separate accidents and denied for lack of medical necessity.
Georgetown Mind-Body Med., P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (2009 NY Slip Op 52464(U))Severance of no-fault claims may rest solely on allegations in the answer without a showing of prejudice.
Metro Med. Diagnostics, P.C. v Motor Veh. Acc. Indem. Corp. (2005 NY Slip Op 50238(U))MVAIC's motion to sever claims arising from three separate accidents was granted because few common issues were likely.