February 24, 2015

Vital Meridian Acupuncture, P.C. v Republic W. Ins. Co. (2015 NY Slip Op 50221(U))

https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/vital-meridian-acupuncture-p-c-v-republic-w-ins-co-2015-ny-slip-op50221u/

Court: Appellate Term, Second Department
Decided: February 24, 2015
Citation: 2015 NY Slip Op 50221(U) · 46 Misc 3d 146(A)
Posture: Summary judgment
Outcome: Insurer prevailed
Issues: Declaratory judgment, res judicata
Legal questions: Effect of insurer's declaratory judgment (see the maps)

Cite as

Vital Meridian Acupuncture, P.C. v Republic W. Ins. Co., 46 Misc 3d 146(A), 2015 NY Slip Op 50221(U) (App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2015)

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's cross motion for summary judgment on res judicata and collateral estoppel grounds was upheld on appeal. The Appellate Term, Second Department, affirmed the order denying the provider's summary judgment motion and granting the insurer's cross motion in this assigned no-fault benefits action, for the reasons stated in the companion appeal decided the same day, No. 2013-1661 K C.

Reported in New York Official Reports at Vital Meridian Acupuncture, P.C. v Republic W. Ins. Co. (2015 NY Slip Op 50221(U))

[*1]

Vital Meridian Acupuncture, P.C. v Republic W. Ins. Co.

2015 NY Slip Op 50221(U) [46 Misc 3d 146(A)]

Decided on February 24, 2015

Appellate Term, Second Department

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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 February 24, 2015

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

PRESENT: : PESCE, P.J., WESTON and ALIOTTA, JJ.
&em;

Vital Meridian Acupuncture, P.C. as Assignee of MARIA TAVARES, Appellant,
against
Republic Western Insurance Company, Respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Robin S. Garson, J.), entered May 13, 2013. The order denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and granted defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with $25 costs.

In this action to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, plaintiff seeks to recover for services it provided to its assignor, who had sustained injuries in a motor vehicle accident that had occurred on February 13, 2011. Plaintiff appeals from an order of the Civil Court entered May 13, 2013 which denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, and granted defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the action is barred by the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel.

For the reasons stated in Vital Meridian Acupuncture, P.C. as Assignee of Gustavo Pichardo v Republic W. Ins. Co. (__ Misc 3d __, 2015 NY Slip Op _____ [appeal No. 2013-1661 K C], decided herewith), the order is affirmed.

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

Decision Date: February 24, 2015

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.

Effect of insurer's declaratory judgment

Open the full map

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

Affirmed dismissal of the provider's action as barred by res judicata and collateral estoppel, for the reasons stated in the companion appeal decided the same day.

Barred by DJBarred in partNot bound: partiesDJ does not reachStayed pending DJStay deniedThis decision

Of the 152 decisions on this question in the Second Department courts and the Court of Appeals, 98 (this one included) are in the same category.

Similar decisions

Vital Meridian Acupuncture, P.C. v American Tr. Ins. Co. (2016 NY Slip Op 51007(U))An unvacated default order declaring noncoverage is a conclusive final determination that can bar a provider's action under res judicata.
Vit Acupuncture, P.C. v Praetorian Ins. Co. (2013 NY Slip Op 52000(U))The insurer's affidavits established timely IME notices and denials and the assignor's failure to attend the scheduled IMEs. The provider sought assigned no-fault benefits, and the insurer cross-moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
Bronx Acupuncture Therapy, P.C. v A. Cent. Ins. Co. (2017 NY Slip Op 51870(U))The insurer established timely IME scheduling, the assignor's nonappearance and timely denials, warranting dismissal of the claims.
Acupuncture Choice, P.C. v American Tr. Ins. Co. (2017 NY Slip Op 51822(U))The provider failed to establish entitlement to summary judgment where timely IME nonappearance denials remained unrebutted.
Health Needles Acupuncture, P.C. v Praetorian Ins. Co. (2014 NY Slip Op 51831(U))A letter merely announcing delay pending an assignor's IME and EUO does not toll the time to pay or deny a no-fault claim.