January 31, 2020

Spine Surgery of Buffalo Niagara v GEICO Cas. Co. (2020 NY Slip Op 00789)

Headnote

The provider's prima facie tort complaint was properly dismissed, but dismissal should have been without prejudice under CPLR 205 (a). As assignee of no-fault claims, the provider asserted a single prima facie tort cause of action and sought, among other relief, punitive damages. The insurer moved under CPLR 3211 (a) (7). The Appellate Division, Fourth Department, upheld dismissal for the reasons stated in Greater Buffalo Acc. & Injury Chiropractic, P.C. v Geico Cas. Co., which involved an identical complaint against the insurer. It declined to consider documents not considered on the motion below and modified the order to make dismissal without prejudice, otherwise affirming.

Reported in New York Official Reports at Spine Surgery of Buffalo Niagara v GEICO Cas. Co. (2020 NY Slip Op 00789)

Spine Surgery of Buffalo Niagara v GEICO Cas. Co.
2020 NY Slip Op 00789 [179 AD3d 1547]
January 31, 2020
Appellate Division, Fourth Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
As corrected through Wednesday, March 11, 2020


[*1]
  Spine Surgery of Buffalo Niagara, Appellant,
v
GEICO Casualty Company, Respondent.

The Morris Law Firm, P.C., Buffalo (Daniel K. Morris of counsel), for plaintiff-appellant.

Rivkin Radler LLP, Uniondale (J’Naia L. Boyd of counsel), for defendant-respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Mark A. Montour, J.), entered January 8, 2019. The order granted the motion of defendant to dismiss the complaint and dismissed the complaint with prejudice.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously modified on the law by providing that the complaint is dismissed without prejudice and as modified the order is affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Plaintiff, as the assignee of certain claims for no-fault benefits, commenced this action asserting a single cause of action for prima facie tort and seeking, inter alia, punitive damages. Defendant moved to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7), and Supreme Court granted the motion. Plaintiff appeals. For the reasons set forth in our decision in Greater Buffalo Acc. & Injury Chiropractic, P.C. v Geico Cas. Co. (175 AD3d 1100, 1101-1102 [4th Dept 2019]), which involved an identical complaint against defendant, we conclude that the court properly granted defendant’s motion, and we do not consider documents submitted by plaintiff that were not considered by the court in determining the motion (see id.; Tuchrello v Tuchrello, 233 AD2d 917, 918 [4th Dept 1996]). Nevertheless, we agree with plaintiff that the dismissal of the complaint should have been without prejudice (see CPLR 205 [a]; Herrmann v Bank of Am., N.A., 170 AD3d 1438, 1442 [3d Dept 2019]; Clark v New York State Off. of Parks, Recreation & Historic Preserv., 288 AD2d 934, 935 [4th Dept 2001]), and we therefore modify the order accordingly. Present—Centra, J.P., Carni, Lindley, Curran and Winslow, JJ.