May 15, 2007

Westchester Med. Ctr. v AIU Ins. Co. (2007 NY Slip Op 04285)

https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/westchester-med-ctr-v-aiu-ins-co-2007-ny-slip-op-04285/

Court: Appellate Division, Second Department
Decided: May 15, 2007
Citation: 2007 NY Slip Op 04285 · 40 AD3d 847
Posture: Default or vacatur
Outcome: Insurer prevailed
Issues: Defaults and vacatur Discovery and procedure
Legal questions: Vacating a default: excuse and defense (see the maps)

Cite as

Westchester Med. Ctr. v AIU Ins. Co., 40 AD3d 847 (2d Dept 2007)

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 motion to vacate its default judgment under CPLR 317 was granted, and the hospital's contempt motion was denied. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed, finding vacatur a provident exercise of discretion and the denial of contempt proper. The contempt motion concerned failure to respond to an information subpoena; the decision supplied no further reasoning for either ruling.

Reported in New York Official Reports at Westchester Med. Ctr. v AIU Ins. Co. (2007 NY Slip Op 04285)

Westchester Med. Ctr. v AIU Ins. Co.

2007 NY Slip Op 04285 [40 AD3d 847]

May 15, 2007

Appellate Division, Second Department

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

As corrected through Wednesday, July 11, 2007

Westchester Medical Center, Appellant,
v
AIU Insurance Company, Respondent.

—[*1] Joseph Henig, P.C., Bellmore, N.Y., for appellant.

Bryan M. Rothenberg, Hicksville, N.Y. (Fiedelman & McGaw [Ross P. Masler] of counsel), for respondent.

In an action to recover no-fault insurance medical benefits, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Alpert, J.), dated November 20, 2006, which granted that branch of the defendant’s motion which was pursuant to CPLR 317 to vacate a judgment of the same court entered March 8, 2005, upon its default in answering, and denied its motion to punish the defendant for contempt of court based on its failure to respond to an information subpoena.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting that branch of the defendant’s motion which was to vacate the default judgment pursuant to CPLR 317 (see CPLR 317; Franklin v 172 Aububon Corp., 32 AD3d 454, 455 [2006]; Rios v Starrett City, Inc., 31 AD3d 418 [2006]; New York & Presbyt. Hosp. v Allstate Ins. Co., 29 AD3d 968 [2006]). The Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiff’s motion to punish the defendant for contempt. Rivera, J.P., Spolzino, Fisher, Lifson and Dickerson, 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: Excuse (or lack of actual notice under CPLR 317) and potentially meritorious defense or claim shown; default vacated or late answer allowed

Held that vacatur of the default judgment entered on the insurer's failure to answer was a provident exercise of discretion under CPLR 317.

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, 67 (this one included) are in the same category.

Cited in this decision

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.

Similar decisions

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.
Westchester Med. Ctr. v Philadelphia Indem. Ins. Co. (2010 NY Slip Op 00138)The insurer failed to justify vacating its default because its affidavit established neither a reasonable excuse nor a meritorious defense.
Wyckoff Hgts. Med. Ctr. v Merchants Ins. Co. of N.H. (2003 NY Slip Op 19994)The insurer's intentional default was not excusable because it sought vacatur only after the provider moved for contempt.
New York & Presbyt. Hosp. v Auto One Ins. Co. (2006 NY Slip Op 02509)The insurer showed a reasonable excuse for its brief answering delay and potentially meritorious defenses, warranting default vacatur.
New York Hosp. Med. Ctr. of Queens v AIU Ins. Co. (2004 NY Slip Op 05217)The insurer waived objections to missing signatures by failing to challenge the hospital forms' completeness within 10 days of receipt.