March 5, 2024
Primavera Physical Therapy, P.C. v State Farm Ins. Co. (2024 NY Slip Op 50276(U))
https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/primavera-physical-therapy-p-c-v-state-farm-ins-co-2024-ny-slip-op-50276u/
- Judge
- Roper, J.
- Decided
- March 5, 2024
- Citation
- 2024 NY Slip Op 50276(U)
- Posture
- Summary judgment
- Outcome
- Insurer prevailed
- Later treatment
- Followed in 1 later decision (see Cited by)
- Legal questions
- Effect of insurer's declaratory judgment (see the maps)
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.
Reported in New York Official Reports at Primavera Physical Therapy, P.C. v State Farm Ins. Co. (2024 NY Slip Op 50276(U))
[*1]| Primavera Physical Therapy, P.C. v State Farm Ins. Co. |
| 2024 NY Slip Op 50276(U) |
| Decided on March 5, 2024 |
| Civil Court Of The City Of New York, Kings County |
| Roper, J. |
| Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. |
| This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports. |
Decided on March 5, 2024
Primavera Physical Therapy, P.C., As Assignee of Alejandro, Luis, Plaintiff(s),
against State Farm Insurance Company, Defendant(s). |
Index No. 753048/18
The Rybak Firm PLLC., New York, for Plaintiff
McDonnell Adels & Klestzick PLLC, New York, for Defendant Sandra E. Roper, J.
Recitation, as required by CPLR §2219(a) of the papers considered in review of this Motion:
Papers
Notice of Motion and Affidavits Annexed 1-2
Answering Affidavits
Replying Affidavits
Exhibits
Other
Upon the foregoing cited papers after oral arguments made on the record, the Decision and Order for Plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery pursuant to CPLR 3124 is hereby deemed MOOT, and Defendant’s Cross-Motion to dismiss and for summary judgment pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(5) and 3212 is hereby GRANTED as follows:
This Court dismisses Plaintiff’s complaint as the instant action is barred under the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel by Declaratory Judgment granted on default in the Supreme Court, County of Nassau, by The Honorable R. Bruce Cozzens, Jr., State Farm Fire and Casualty Insurance Company v. Luis Alejandro, et. al., under Index No. 615595/18. This Court takes judicial notice of this Declaratory Judgment which declared, inter alia, Plaintiff/Provider has no right to payment for No-Fault claims for the underlying accident of September 5, 2017, as the underlying loss was an intentional act, staged accident, for which there is no coverage. There are identical parties and date of accident with this instant matter. It is of no moment that there is no specific claim number included in the DJ, as Plaintiff/Provider argues as a dispositive omission. Further, Plaintiff/Provider’s argument of prejudice by ambush of the untimeliness of the DJ as procedurally improper is not compelling and thereby rejected for the [*2]purposes of Plaintiff’s application for an adjournment. Plaintiff/Provider and individual EIP/assignor had full, ample, and unfettered opportunity to engage in the defense in the DJ action but chose not to so do and therefore may not do so in this forum, which is a court of limited jurisdiction that does not sit as a Court of Equity. This Court is mandated and shall take judicial notice Sua Sponte of any DJ actions duly entered in courts of superior jurisdiction, as is herein, that may be attendant or relevant to the instant action before it, from any source during its deliberation, whether neither party brings it to This Court’s attention. For the foregoing reasons, this case is dismissed pursuant to the Doctrines of Res Judicata and Collateral Estoppel.
This constitutes the Decision and Order of This Court.
Dated: March 5, 2024Brooklyn, New York
Judge Sandra Elena Roper, Civil Court
Legal questions
A question of no-fault law this decision rules on, from our Legal Questions pages. Bars count the decisions on the question by year and court, coloured by category; circles are this decision and the decisions on the question it cites or that cite it. Point at a bar or circle for details. The categories and summaries are Beynenson Law’s classification, made by a language model and checked by a second reading.
Does an insurer’s no-coverage declaratory judgment, or pending declaratory action, bar or stay a no-fault claimant’s action?
This decision: The DJ is given preclusive effect and bars every claim in the action that the court considered
Dismissed the provider's action under res judicata and collateral estoppel because a default Supreme Court declaratory judgment covering the same parties and accident declared no right to payment, despite the absence of a claim number.
Of the 163 decisions on this question in the Second Department courts and the Court of Appeals, 100 (this one included) are in the same category.
Cited by
A label shows how the later decision treated this one.
- Prompt Med. Supply Inc v Metropolitan Gen. Ins Co. (2024 NY Slip Op 50654(U)) FollowedThe insurer's dismissal request based on a New Jersey default coverage judgment was denied because the provider never appeared there.
- UGP Acupuncture, P.C. v Progressive N. Ins. Co. (2024 NY Slip Op 50814(U))The provider's motion to substitute a different insurer was moot because a settlement and discontinuance had disposed of the action.
Similar decisions
- CuraHealth Specialty Pharm. Corp v State Farm Ins. Co. (2026 NY Slip Op 50852(U))The insurer established a founded belief that the collision was intentionally caused, and the provider failed to raise a triable issue.
- Dos Manos Chiropractic, P.C. v State Farm Ins. Co. (2022 NY Slip Op 50995(U))An unvacated default declaratory judgment precludes a provider's benefits action involving the same parties and accident under res judicata.
- Sutter Pharmacy v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (2021 NY Slip Op 50610(U))The insurer's late, successive summary judgment motion was granted based on a subsequent declaratory judgment barring coverage.
- Altercare Acupuncture, P.C. v Utica Mut. Ins. Co. (2011 NY Slip Op 51639(U))An unvacated default declaratory judgment of no coverage bars the served provider's benefits action under res judicata.
- Triborough Psychiatric v State Farm Mut. Ins. Co. (2021 NY Slip Op 50084(U))The provider's claim was not barred by collateral estoppel because the declaratory judgment was entered on default and privity was absent.