August 2, 2017
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v Austin Diagnostic Med., P.C. (2017 NY Slip Op 05992)
https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/state-farm-mut-auto-ins-co-v-austin-diagnostic-med-p-c-2017-ny-slip-op05992/
- Decided
- August 2, 2017
- Citation
- 2017 NY Slip Op 05992 · 153 AD3d 576
- Posture
- Other motion
- Outcome
- Insurer prevailed
- Issues
- Defaults and vacatur
- Legal questions
- Vacating a default: excuse and defense (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 State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v Austin Diagnostic Med., P.C. (2017 NY Slip Op 05992)
| State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v Austin Diagnostic Med., P.C. |
| 2017 NY Slip Op 05992 [153 AD3d 576] |
| August 2, 2017 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. |
[*1]
| State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company,
Respondent, v Austin Diagnostic Medical, P.C., Appellant. |
Cardillo Law PC, Brooklyn, NY (Harry A. Cardillo of counsel), for appellant.
Freiberg, Peck & Kang LLP, Armonk, NY (Yilo J. Kang of counsel), for respondent.
In an action for a judgment declaring that the plaintiff is not obligated to pay certain no-fault insurance benefits, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Dufficy, J.), entered February 29, 2016, which denied its motion to extend its time to answer, or in the alternative, to compel the plaintiff to accept the untimely answer.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The plaintiff insurance company commenced this action against the defendant, seeking a judgment declaring that it was not obligated to pay certain no-fault insurance benefits because the defendant failed to appear for examinations under oath. The defendant filed an answer approximately 31/2 months after the statutory time to file an answer had expired. The plaintiff rejected the answer as untimely, and the defendant moved to extend its time to answer, or in the alternative, to compel the plaintiff to accept the untimely answer. The Supreme Court denied the motion, and the defendant appeals.
To compel the plaintiff to accept an untimely answer as timely or to extend the time for a defendant to answer, a defendant must provide a reasonable excuse for the delay and demonstrate a potentially meritorious defense to the action (see Ryan v Breezy Point Coop., Inc., 76 AD3d 523, 524 [2010]; Juseinoski v Board of Educ. of City of N.Y., 15 AD3d 353 [2005]). Here, the defendant submitted an answer which was verified only by its attorney and an affirmation from its attorney who did not have personal knowledge of the facts. These documents were insufficient to demonstrate that the defendant had a potentially meritorious defense to the action (see Salch v Paratore, 60 NY2d 851 [1983]; Ryan v Breezy Point Coop., Inc., 76 AD3d at 524; Juseinoski v Board of Educ. of City of N.Y., 15 AD3d 353 [2005]).
The parties’ remaining contentions either are without merit or have been rendered academic in light of our determination.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the defendant’s motion. Dillon, J.P., Austin, Hinds-Radix and LaSalle, 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.
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
Upheld denial of the provider's motion to extend its time to answer or compel acceptance of its late answer because an answer verified only by counsel and an attorney's affirmation without personal knowledge showed no potentially meritorious defense.
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.
Similar decisions
- Good Care Chiropractic, P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (2024 NY Slip Op 50205(U))The insurer's delay in answering was excused based on the particular circumstances, lack of willfulness and absence of prejudice.
- J.O. Dedicated Med., P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (2009 NY Slip Op 51089(U))The insurer's assertion of clerical inadvertence did not establish a reasonable excuse for its default in answering.
- Maximum Chiropractic, P.C. v Allstate Ins. Co. (2017 NY Slip Op 50552(U))The insurer established a reasonable excuse for its late answer and a potentially meritorious medical-necessity defense.
- Prompt Med. Supply, Inc. v State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co. (2019 NY Slip Op 50503(U))The insurer's default was excused based on possible withdrawal and the provider's assurance that no default proceedings would be commenced.
- New Age Med., P.C. v GEICO Gen. Ins. Co. (2020 NY Slip Op 50316(U))The insurer failed to excuse its year-long delay in correcting an answer rejected for bearing the wrong index number.