February 23, 2015

Lms Acupuncture, P.C. v American Tr. Ins. Co. (2015 NY Slip Op 50198(U))

Headnote

The main issue in this case was whether plaintiff, LMS Acupuncture, P.C., was entitled to recover first-party no-fault benefits for services provided to Kashif Edwards due to injuries sustained in a car accident. The court considered the fact that defendant, American Transit Insurance Company, had filed a declaratory judgment action in Supreme Court seeking a declaration that the defendants were not entitled to no-fault benefits. The Supreme Court granted this motion on default, which then caused the Civil Court to deny plaintiff's motion for summary judgment. Based on the doctrine of res judicata, the court held that the Civil Court action was barred by the Supreme Court's determination in the declaratory judgment action. The court also found that the record supported the granting of summary judgment in favor of the defendant, and therefore affirmed the decision of the Civil Court and awarded summary judgment dismissing the complaint to the defendant.

Reported in New York Official Reports at Lms Acupuncture, P.C. v American Tr. Ins. Co. (2015 NY Slip Op 50198(U))

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

LMS Acupuncture, P.C. as Assignee of KASHIF EDWARDS, Appellant,
against
American Transit Ins. Co., Respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Genine D. Edwards, J.), entered June 7, 2013. The order denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with $25 costs, and, upon searching the record, defendant is awarded summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Plaintiff commenced this action in the Civil Court to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, asserting that it had provided health care services to Kashif Edwards for injuries sustained in an April 26, 2010 automobile accident, and that Edwards had assigned his benefits to plaintiff. Shortly thereafter, defendant, American Transit Insurance Company (American Transit), commenced a declaratory judgment action in Supreme Court, New York County, against plaintiff, other providers and Kashif Edwards, seeking a declaration that all of the defendants therein were not entitled to no-fault benefits as a result of the April 26, 2010 accident involving Edwards on the ground that Edwards had failed to comply with the terms of the applicable insurance policy by failing to appear for scheduled independent medical examinations. Neither plaintiff nor Edwards served an answer or otherwise appeared in the Supreme Court action. Approximately one year later, plaintiff, LMS Acupuncture, P.C., moved for summary judgment in the Civil Court. American Transit opposed the motion on the ground that LMS Acupuncture, P.C.’s Civil Court action was barred by the pending declaratory judgment action. While the Civil Court action was pending, American Transit moved in Supreme Court for, among other relief, a declaration that Kashif Edwards is not an eligible injured person entitled to no-fault benefits under the insurance policy at issue and that American Transit is not obligated to honor or pay claims submitted by Edwards’ assignees, including LMS Acupuncture, P.C., arising from the subject accident, under the insurance policy at issue. On May 8, 2013, the Supreme Court granted, on default, American Transit’s motion. By order entered June 7, 2013, the Civil Court denied LMS Acupuncture, P.C.’s motion for summary judgment, in light of the Supreme Court’s determination in the declaratory judgment action. On August 1, 2013, the Supreme Court signed a long-form order embodying its determination.

Under the doctrine of res judicata, a disposition on the merits bars litigation between the same parties of a cause of action arising out of the same transaction or series of transactions as a cause of action that either was raised or could have been raised in the prior action (see Abraham v Hermitage Ins. Co., 47 AD3d 855 [2008]). “The rationale underlying this principle is that a party who has been given a full and fair opportunity to litigate a claim should not be allowed to do so again” (Matter of Hunter, 4 NY3d 260, 269 [2005]).

Based upon the declaratory judgment action in Supreme Court, the instant action is barred under the doctrine of res judicata (see EBM Med. Health Care, P.C. v Republic W. Ins., 38 Misc 3d 1 [App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2012]; Ava Acupuncture, P.C. v NY Cent. Mut. [*2]Fire Ins. Co., 34 Misc 3d 149[A], 2012 NY Slip Op 50233[U] [App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2012]), since the prior action was disposed of on the merits (see Abraham, 47 AD3d 855; Ava Acupuncture, P.C., 34 Misc 3d 149[A], 2012 NY Slip Op 50233[U]), and the Supreme Court’s order is a conclusive final determination (see Sabatino v Capco Trading, Inc., 27 AD3d 1019 [2006]). To hold otherwise could result in a judgment in the present action which would destroy or impair rights or interests established in the Supreme Court action (see Schuylkill Fuel Corp. v Nieberg Realty Corp., 250 NY 304, 306-307 [1929]; EBM Med. Health Care, P.C., 38 Misc 3d 1). We note that any contention that the Supreme Court’s May 8, 2013 determination was not a final disposition has been rendered moot by the entry of the August 1, 2013 long-form order.

Although defendant did not cross-move for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, upon a search of the record, we find that it supports the granting of such relief as a matter of law (see CPLR 3212 [b]; Merritt Hill Vineyards v Windy Hgts. Vineyard, 61 NY2d 106 [1984]).

Accordingly, the order of the Civil Court is affirmed, and, upon searching the record, defendant is awarded summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Pesce, P.J., Weston and Elliot, JJ., concur.

Decision Date: February 23, 2015