• 347-746-6001
  • contact@beynensonlaw.com
Beynenson Law
Beynenson Law
  • Services
    • Search Case Law & Regulations
    • New Decisions
    • Decisions by Court
    • Legal Questions
    • No-Fault Regulations
    • Claim Process & Deadlines
    • Ask No-Fault AI
    • Arbitrator Scorecard
    • Award Volume
    • Arbitrator / Carrier Data
    • Provider / Carrier Data
    • Provider / Attorney Data
    • Arbitration Pro Extension
  • About Us
  • Contact
  • East Hampton, New York

  • 347-746-6001
  • contact@beynensonlaw.com
  • Services
    • Search Case Law & Regulations
    • New Decisions
    • Decisions by Court
    • Legal Questions
    • No-Fault Regulations
    • Claim Process & Deadlines
    • Ask No-Fault AI
    • Arbitrator Scorecard
    • Award Volume
    • Arbitrator / Carrier Data
    • Provider / Carrier Data
    • Provider / Attorney Data
    • Arbitration Pro Extension
  • About Us
  • Contact
October 27, 2009

St. Barnabas Hosp. v Allstate Ins. Co. (2009 NY Slip Op 07824)

https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/st-barnabas-hosp-v-allstate-ins-co-2009-ny-slip-op-07824/

Court
Appellate Division, Second Department
Decided
October 27, 2009
Citation
2009 NY Slip Op 07824 · 66 AD3d 996
Posture
Default or vacatur
Outcome
Provider prevailed
Later treatment
Followed in 1 later decision (see Cited by)
Issues
Defaults and vacatur
Legal questions
Vacating a default: excuse and defense (see the maps)
Cite as
St. Barnabas Hosp. v Allstate Ins. Co., 66 AD3d 996 (2d Dept 2009)

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 insurer failed to establish a meritorious defense because its timely denial misstated the claim amount and gave an invalid reason. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the order, insofar as appealed from, denying vacatur of the hospital's default judgment. CPLR 5015 (a) (1) required both a reasonable excuse and a meritorious defense. Although the insurer denied the claim within 30 days after receiving the completed hospital facility form, the denial was fatally defective. Under 11 NYCRR 65-3.4 (c) (11), a denial must provide the prescribed information and specify its grounds; timely issuance alone does not prevent preclusion when the denial is substantively insufficient.

Reported in New York Official Reports at St. Barnabas Hosp. v Allstate Ins. Co. (2009 NY Slip Op 07824)

St. Barnabas Hosp. v Allstate Ins. Co.
2009 NY Slip Op 07824 [66 AD3d 996]
October 27, 2009
Appellate Division, Second Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
As corrected through Wednesday, December 9, 2009
St. Barnabas Hospital, as Assignee of Patrick Bateman, Respondent, et al., Plaintiff,
v
Allstate Insurance Company, Appellant.

—[*1] McDonnell & Adels, PLLC, Garden City, N.Y. (Martha S. Henley and Short & Billy [Skip Short], of counsel), for appellant.

Joseph Henig, P.C., Bellmore, N.Y., for respondent.

In an action to recover no-fault medical payments under two insurance contracts, the defendant appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Woodard, J.), entered September 25, 2008, as denied that branch of its motion which was pursuant to CPLR 5015 to vacate so much of a judgment of the same court entered May 15, 2008, as, upon its default in appearing or answering the complaint, is in favor of the plaintiff St. Barnabas Hospital, as assignee of Patrick Bateman, and against it in the principal sum of $4,309.64.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

A defendant seeking to vacate a judgment entered upon its default in appearing or answering the complaint must demonstrate a reasonable excuse for its delay in appearing or answering, as well as a meritorious defense to the action (see CPLR 5015 [a] [1]; Westchester Med. Ctr. v Hartford Cas. Ins. Co., 58 AD3d 832, 832 [2009]; Verde Elec. Corp. v Federal Ins. Co., 50 AD3d 672, 672-673 [2008]).

“A proper denial of [a] claim [for no-fault benefits] must include the information called for in the prescribed denial of claim form (see 11 NYCRR 65-3.4 [c] [11]) and must ‘promptly apprise the claimant with a high degree of specificity of the ground or grounds on which the disclaimer is predicated’ ” (Nyack Hosp. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 11 AD3d 664, 664 [2004], quoting General Acc. Ins. Group v Cirucci, 46 NY2d 862, 864 [1979]). However, a timely denial of a no-fault insurance medical claim alone does not avoid preclusion where said denial is factually insufficient, conclusory, vague, or otherwise involves a defense which has no merit as a matter of law (see Nyack Hosp. v Metropolitan Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 16 AD3d 564, 565 [2005]).

The defendant insurer, Allstate Insurance Company (hereinafter Allstate), issued a timely denial of claim within 30 days of its receipt of the completed hospital facility form (NYS Form N-F 5) from the plaintiff St. Barnabas Hospital, as assignee of Patrick Bateman (hereinafter the plaintiff) (see 11 NYCRR 65-3.5 [g]; 65-3.8 [c]). Contrary to Allstate’s contention, however, the Supreme Court properly determined that the denial of claim, which incorrectly stated the amount of the claim and gave an invalid reason for the denial (see 11 NYCRR 65-3.3 [d]; 65-3.5 [g]; see also Westchester Med. Ctr. v Lincoln [*2]Gen. Ins. Co., 60 AD3d 1045, 1046 [2009]; Nyack Hosp. v Encompass Ins. Co., 23 AD3d 535, 536 [2005]), was fatally defective (see Nyack Hosp. v Metropolitan Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 16 AD3d at 565; Nyack Hosp. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 11 AD3d at 665; Presbyterian Hosp. in City of N.Y. v Maryland Cas. Co., 226 AD2d 613, 614 [1996]). Thus, Allstate failed to demonstrate the existence of a meritorious defense (see CPLR 5015 [a] [1]).

Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied that branch of Allstate’s motion which was pursuant to CPLR 5015 to vacate so much of a judgment of the same court entered May 15, 2008, as, upon its default in appearing or answering the complaint, is in favor of the plaintiff and against it in the principal sum of $4,309.64. Skelos, J.P., Covello, Santucci and Balkin, JJ., concur.

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.

Vacating a default: excuse and defense

Open the full map

Did the defaulting party show a reasonable excuse (or lack of notice) and a potentially meritorious defense or claim?

This decision: Relief denied because no potentially meritorious defense or cause of action was shown; excuse accepted or not reached

Held the insurer showed no meritorious defense to vacate the default judgment because its timely denial misstated the claim amount and gave an invalid reason, making it fatally defective.

  • Appellate DivisionApp Div 34
  • Appellate TermApp Term 127
  • Trial courtsTrial 9
2022, Appellate Division: 1 decision (1 No reasonable excuse)2019, Appellate Division: 2 decisions (1 Default excused, 1 No reasonable excuse)2018, Appellate Division: 1 decision (1 Default excused)2017, Appellate Division: 1 decision (1 No meritorious defense)2014, Appellate Division: 1 decision (1 Default excused)2012, Appellate Division: 1 decision (1 Default excused)2011, Appellate Division: 1 decision (1 Default excused)2010, Appellate Division: 1 decision (1 Neither shown)2009, Appellate Division: 3 decisions (2 Default excused, 1 No meritorious defense)2008, Appellate Division: 2 decisions (1 Default excused, 1 No reasonable excuse)2007, Appellate Division: 3 decisions (3 Default excused)2006, Appellate Division: 7 decisions (7 Default excused)2005, Appellate Division: 3 decisions (1 Default excused, 1 No meritorious defense, 1 Neither shown)2004, Appellate Division: 4 decisions (2 Default excused, 1 No reasonable excuse, 1 Neither shown)2003, Appellate Division: 1 decision (1 No reasonable excuse)2026, Appellate Division: 1 decision (1 No reasonable excuse)2015, Appellate Division: 1 decision (1 Neither shown)2023, Appellate Term: 2 decisions (1 Default excused, 1 No reasonable excuse)2022, Appellate Term: 4 decisions (3 Default excused, 1 No reasonable excuse)2021, Appellate Term: 6 decisions (3 Default excused, 2 No reasonable excuse, 1 Neither shown)2020, Appellate Term: 10 decisions (2 Default excused, 7 No reasonable excuse, 1 Hearing or remittal)2019, Appellate Term: 18 decisions (5 Default excused, 11 No reasonable excuse, 2 No meritorious defense)2018, Appellate Term: 4 decisions (1 Default excused, 1 No reasonable excuse, 2 Neither shown)2017, Appellate Term: 14 decisions (5 Default excused, 6 No reasonable excuse, 2 No meritorious defense, 1 Neither shown)2016, Appellate Term: 5 decisions (2 Default excused, 2 No reasonable excuse, 1 Neither shown)2015, Appellate Term: 3 decisions (1 No reasonable excuse, 2 Neither shown)2014, Appellate Term: 2 decisions (1 No reasonable excuse, 1 No meritorious defense)2013, Appellate Term: 1 decision (1 No meritorious defense)2012, Appellate Term: 8 decisions (2 Default excused, 5 No reasonable excuse, 1 Neither shown)2011, Appellate Term: 5 decisions (1 Default excused, 2 No reasonable excuse, 1 No meritorious defense, 1 Neither shown)2010, Appellate Term: 12 decisions (4 Default excused, 4 No reasonable excuse, 1 No meritorious defense, 3 Neither shown)2009, Appellate Term: 5 decisions (2 Default excused, 2 No reasonable excuse, 1 No meritorious defense)2008, Appellate Term: 7 decisions (1 Default excused, 4 No reasonable excuse, 1 No meritorious defense, 1 Neither shown)2007, Appellate Term: 1 decision (1 No reasonable excuse)2006, Appellate Term: 5 decisions (3 Default excused, 1 No meritorious defense, 1 Neither shown)2005, Appellate Term: 2 decisions (2 Default excused)2004, Appellate Term: 4 decisions (1 No reasonable excuse, 2 No meritorious defense, 1 Neither shown)2024, Appellate Term: 2 decisions (1 Default excused, 1 No reasonable excuse)2025, Appellate Term: 3 decisions (3 Default excused)2026, Appellate Term: 3 decisions (3 No reasonable excuse)2003, Appellate Term: 1 decision (1 Neither shown)2023, Trial courts: 1 decision (1 No reasonable excuse)2011, Trial courts: 1 decision (1 No reasonable excuse)2009, Trial courts: 1 decision (1 Default excused)2007, Trial courts: 1 decision (1 Default excused)2004, Trial courts: 1 decision (1 No meritorious defense)2026, Trial courts: 1 decision (1 Default excused)2006, Trial courts: 2 decisions (1 Default excused, 1 Neither shown)2024, Trial courts: 1 decision (1 Default excused)This decision
20052010201520202025
Default excusedNo reasonable excuseNo meritorious defenseNeither shownHearing or remittalThis decisionCites it or cited by itCited or followed

Of the 170 decisions on this question in the Second Department courts and the Court of Appeals, 17 (this one included) are in the same category.

Cited in this decision

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

  • Westchester Med. Ctr. v Hartford Cas. Ins. Co. (2009 NY Slip Op 00528)The insurers showed an excusable default and a potentially meritorious defense based on partial exhaustion of policy limits.
  • Nyack Hosp. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (2004 NY Slip Op 07663) FollowedA timely but fatally defective denial cannot be cured by supplying omitted information after the 30-day denial period expires.
  • Nyack Hosp. v Metropolitan Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. (2005 NY Slip Op 02235) FollowedThe insurer failed to prove mailing of its denial, and the denial was incomplete even if timely.
  • Westchester Med. Ctr. v Lincoln Gen. Ins. Co. (2009 NY Slip Op 02589)The insurer's investigation letters did not toll the 30-day period to pay or deny the provider's claim.
  • Nyack Hosp. v Encompass Ins. Co. (2005 NY Slip Op 08962)An insurer's letters delaying payment pending its investigation do not toll the 30-day period for paying or denying a no-fault claim.

Cited by

A label shows how the later decision treated this one.

  • St. Vincent’s Hosp. & Med. Ctr. v New Jersey Mfrs. Ins. Co. (2011 NY Slip Op 01828) FollowedThe insurer's timely denials were fatally defective because they misstated the bill and disputed amounts and named the wrong applicant.
  • NYU-Hospital for Joint Diseases v Esurance Ins. Co. (2011 NY Slip Op 04436)The insurer raised factual issues about timely denial and whether the assignor's injury resulted from driving while intoxicated.
  • A-Quality Med. Supply v GEICO Gen. Ins. Co. (2010 NY Slip Op 20502)The insurer failed to prove its medical necessity defense because supporting peer reviews were inadmissible or unauthenticated.
  • Clinton Med. Off. P.C. v Progressive Max Ins. Co. (2026 NY Slip Op 26094)The insurer's EUO nonappearance denials were sufficient without listing the scheduled EUO dates.
  • Total Chiropratic P.C. v Mercury Cas. Ins. Co. (2021 NY Slip Op 50142(U))The provider's claims were barred by an unvacated default declaratory judgment determining coverage against both provider and assignor.

Similar decisions

  • Nyack Hosp. v Allstate Ins. Co. (2006 NY Slip Op 52233(U))The insurer lacked a meritorious defense to vacate its default because a completed hospital facility form replaced the requested no-fault application.
  • NYU-Hospital for Joint Diseases v Allstate Ins. Co. (2014 NY Slip Op 08613)The hospital failed to establish entitlement to summary judgment because its own papers included a timely and sufficient denial.
  • New York & Presbyt. Hosp. v Allstate Ins. Co. (2006 NY Slip Op 04260)The insurer obtained default vacatur under CPLR 317 by showing untimely actual notice of the summons and meritorious defenses.
  • Westchester Med. Ctr. v Allstate Ins. Co. (2007 NY Slip Op 08447)The hospital failed to establish that the insurer's timely NF-10 denial was too vague or deficient to constitute a proper response.
  • St. Vincent’s Hosp. & Med. Ctr. v Allstate Ins. Co. (2007 NY Slip Op 06227)The insurer's motion to vacate its default was granted upon a showing of a reasonable excuse and a potentially meritorious defense.
Beynenson Law

Tech-driven New York no-fault collections for healthcare providers.

About the firm

Contact

  • East Hampton, New York

  • 347-746-6001
  • contact@beynensonlaw.com
  • Contact form

Research

  • Search Case Law & Regulations
  • New Decisions
  • Decisions by Court
  • Legal Questions
  • No-Fault Regulations
  • Claim Process & Deadlines
  • Ask No-Fault AI

Arbitration Data

  • Arbitrator Scorecard
  • Award Volume
  • Arbitrator / Carrier Data
  • Provider / Carrier Data
  • Provider / Attorney Data
  • Arbitration Pro Extension

©2026 The Beynenson Law Group, PC. Terms of Use Privacy Policy

Site by khrystev.dev

Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. This website provides general information, not legal advice, and using it does not create an attorney-client relationship. Do not send confidential information through this site.