The Appellate Term, Second Department, held that a provider bringing a CPLR 7510 proceeding to confirm a master arbitration award the insurer did not timely pay is entitled to court-fixed fees under 11 NYCRR 65-4.10 (j) (4) for that proceeding and appeal (New York Recovery PT). Applying Hauswirth, it required the assignee of a passenger aware of the owner's identity to exhaust remedies against the owner before suing MVAIC (GAO Acupuncture), but rejected MVAIC's exhaustion defense where the other policies were cancelled before the accident (NY Wellness). Police-report hearsay did not prove the insured vehicle uninvolved (Prompt Med.), and three decisions held a traverse-hearing order not appealable as of right.
Our summary of the month’s decisions, not the courts’ words.
Appellate Term, Second Department
Jul 18, 2025
2025 NY Slip Op 51173(U)
Insurer prevailed
A passenger's assignee must exhaust remedies against a known vehicle owner before seeking benefits from MVAIC. The provider sought assigned first-party no-fault benefits from MVAIC for an assignor who was a passenger and knew the vehicle owner's identity. Following Hauswirth v American Home Assur. Co., the court required exhaustion of remedies against that owner. The provider did not demonstrate exhaustion. The Appellate Term, Second Department, reversed the amended order, insofar as appealed from, and granted MVAIC's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, reaching no other issue.
Appellate Term, Second Department
Jul 18, 2025
2025 NY Slip Op 51177(U)
Provider prevailed
The insurer's appeal from an order directing a traverse hearing on its dismissal motion was dismissed. The Civil Court had granted the dismissal branch only to the extent of setting a traverse hearing. The Appellate Term, Second Department, relied on the reasons stated in the companion appeal, Shamrock Med., P.C. v Personal Serv. Ins. Co., decided the same day, No. 2024-858 K C.
Appellate Term, Second Department
Jul 18, 2025
2025 NY Slip Op 51176(U)
Provider prevailed
The insurer's appeal from an order directing a traverse hearing on its dismissal motion was dismissed. The Civil Court had granted the dismissal branch only to the extent of setting a traverse hearing. The Appellate Term, Second Department, relied on the reasons stated in the companion appeal, Shamrock Med., P.C. v Personal Serv. Ins. Co., decided the same day, No. 2024-858 K C.
Appellate Term, Second Department
Jul 18, 2025
2025 NY Slip Op 51175(U)
Provider prevailed
An order setting a matter down for a traverse hearing is not appealable as of right under CCA 1702 (a) (2). The insurer moved to dismiss the provider's action to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits. The Civil Court granted that branch of the motion only to the extent of directing a traverse hearing. The Appellate Term, Second Department, declined to grant leave to appeal and dismissed the insurer's appeal from that portion of the order.
Appellate Term, Second Department
Jul 17, 2025
2025 NY Slip Op 25166
Provider prevailed
A provider may recover attorney's fees for confirming an overdue master arbitration award and for the ensuing appeal. After the insurer failed to timely satisfy the award under 11 NYCRR 65-4.10 (e) (4), the provider commenced a CPLR 7510 proceeding. The insurer then paid the award, and the District Court confirmed it but denied additional attorney's fees. Under 11 NYCRR 65-4.10 (j) (4), a court appeal includes an article 75 proceeding to confirm or vacate a master arbitration award. The Appellate Term, Second Department, reversed the order, insofar as appealed from, granted the provider's request for fees for the confirmation proceeding and appeal, and remitted the matter to determine reasonable fees.
Appellate Term, Second Department
Jul 11, 2025
2025 NY Slip Op 51165(U)
Provider prevailed
MVAIC failed to establish other available insurance or timely denials preserving its defense of the assignor's EUO nonappearances. MVAIC sought summary judgment dismissing certain assigned no-fault claims, arguing that the provider first had to exhaust remedies under other insurance policies. Even assuming its insurance-search document was admissible, the document indicated that policies issued to the assignor or a possible household member were canceled upon voluntary surrender of license plates more than two months before the accident. MVAIC also failed to establish timely and proper denials within 30 days of the last scheduled EUO, and thus failed to show that its nonappearance defense was not precluded. The Appellate Term, Second Department, affirmed the order insofar as it denied summary judgment on those claims.
Appellate Term, Second Department
Jul 11, 2025
2025 NY Slip Op 51164(U)
Provider prevailed
The insurer's hearsay submissions and conflicting accident accounts failed to establish that its insured vehicle was uninvolved. The Civil Court granted summary judgment dismissing the provider's assigned no-fault claims on that coverage ground. Although the police report was certified, statements attributed to an unrelated vehicle's driver, a witness, and the assignor were inadmissible hearsay because no exception was established. A statement in a purported transcript of a call with the insured vehicle's owner was also inadmissible hearsay. The insurer's own papers additionally contained conflicting accounts of the accident and the insured vehicle's involvement. The Appellate Term, Second Department, reversed the order and denied the insurer's motion.
Trial court, Second Department
Jul 9, 2025
2025 NY Slip Op 25186
The ride-hailing companies' documents failed to refute allegations that they employed or controlled the driver. The Civil Court, Queens County, denied their pre-answer motion under CPLR 3211 (a) (1) and (7) to dismiss an insurer's property-damage subrogation complaint. A vehicle-title abstract established that the companies did not own the vehicle, and the platform agreement characterized the parties as independent businesses, but neither conclusively resolved the alleged employment relationship. Following Hernandez v Chefs Diet Delivery, LLC, a contractual independent-contractor designation was relevant but not dispositive. The agreement's compliance requirements, background checks, vehicle standards and driver-rating system indicated some control. Accepting the allegations as true and drawing favorable inferences, the court found dismissal unwarranted.
