Appellate Division, Second Department
Feb 25, 2026
2026 NY Slip Op 01054
Insurer prevailed
The provider's postjudgment discovery and additional attorney-fee requests failed because the insurer had satisfied the judgment. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed both orders, insofar as appealed from, upholding entry of satisfaction under CPLR 5021 (a) (2) and denial of further discovery under CPLR 5223. Quashing the information subpoena under CPLR 2304 was proper because collection discovery had no purpose after satisfaction, the requested information was irrelevant, and the subpoena was served to harass the insurer. Additional fees under Insurance Law § 5106 (a) and 11 NYCRR 65-4.10 (j) (4) were unavailable for the provider's postjudgment motion practice because no claim or portion of a claim remained overdue.
Appellate Division, Second Department
Feb 25, 2026
2026 NY Slip Op 01053
Insurer prevailed
The provider was denied additional attorney fees because the insurer had satisfied the judgment and no no-fault benefits remained overdue. The Appellate Division, Second Department, upheld entry of satisfaction under CPLR 5021 (a) (2). Satisfaction foreclosed additional discovery under CPLR 5223, making the provider's requests to compel subpoena compliance and impose a fine academic. Under Insurance Law § 5106 (a) and 11 NYCRR 65-4.10 (j) (4), postjudgment motion practice warranted no additional fees absent an overdue claim. The order was modified to deny fees on the merits and otherwise affirmed insofar as reviewed. The appeal from denial of the insurer's subpoena-quashing request was dismissed under CPLR 5511 because the provider was not aggrieved.
Appellate Division, Second Department
Feb 25, 2026
2026 NY Slip Op 01052
Split result
A provider may recover additional attorney fees for services necessarily performed to collect overdue postjudgment interest on no-fault benefits. After confirmation of a master arbitration award, the insurer paid the judgment except for postjudgment interest. The Appellate Division, Second Department, modified the order to grant additional fees under Insurance Law § 5106 (a) and 11 NYCRR 65-4.10 (j) (4), remitting for determination of the amount. It otherwise affirmed the order, insofar as appealed from, including quashing the information subpoena under CPLR 2304 because the requested information was irrelevant and the subpoena was served to harass. Fees for the remaining subpoena and appellate services were unavailable because those services were not part of a legitimate collection attempt.
Appellate Division, Fourth Department
Feb 11, 2026
2026 NY Slip Op 00748
Provider prevailed
The insurer's repeated discovery failures were willful, contumacious, and in bad faith, warranting a default judgment on the no-fault claim. In an injured claimant's action for unpaid lost-wage benefits, the insurer repeatedly supplied incomplete responses despite consenting to a conditional preclusion order requiring completion within 60 days. The Appellate Division, Fourth Department, affirmed the order striking the answer and entering default judgment under CPLR 3126, and denying the insurer's CPLR 3103 protective-order cross motion. The claimant established misconduct, shifting the burden to the insurer to offer a reasonable excuse. The insurer offered only a relevance objection, which failed because the demands sought evidence of potential bias by its IME physicians.
Appellate Division, Second Department
Feb 4, 2026
2026 NY Slip Op 00501
Insurer prevailed
The provider's fee appeal was dismissed because the challenged portion of the order did not decide a motion made on notice. In a CPLR article 75 proceeding to vacate a master arbitration award, the provider appealed the portion of Supreme Court's order denying additional attorney fees. The Appellate Division, Second Department, held that no appeal lay as of right under CPLR 5701 (a) (2) and declined to grant leave to appeal, leaving the denial in place.
Appellate Term, Second Department
Feb 27, 2026
2026 NY Slip Op 50683(U)
Split result
A settlement-default judgment under CPLR 5003-a (e) is not subject to a six-year contract limitations period. The provider entered judgment more than 21 years after settlement. The insurer failed to prove nonreceipt of settlement documents or unenforceability despite unsigned settlement proof; the court record reflected settlement. CPLR 3215 (i) (1), CPLR 5003-a (e), and the stipulation imposed no time limit, and CPLR 5003-a (e) required no further notice. Former 11 NYCRR 65.15 (h) permitted compound interest because the accident preceded the effective date of 11 NYCRR 65-3.9 (a). The Appellate Term, Second Department, modified the vacatur order to preserve the judgment except for the separate $850 attorney's fee award, which CPLR 5003-a (e) did not authorize.
Appellate Term, Second Department
Feb 27, 2026
2026 NY Slip Op 50685(U)
Split result
CPLR 5003-a (e) does not authorize attorney's fees in a judgment entered for failure to pay a settlement. The provider appealed an order vacating its settlement judgment. The insurer had not disputed settlement or receipt of an executed release and discontinuance stipulation, so the judgment could not be vacated on the provider's supposed failure to prove those matters under CPLR 5003-a (a). The insurer's remaining vacatur grounds lacked merit. The Appellate Term, Second Department, modified the order to grant vacatur only of the attorney's fee award and otherwise affirmed, preserving the remainder of the judgment.
Appellate Term, Second Department
Feb 27, 2026
2026 NY Slip Op 50686(U)
Insurer prevailed
The insurer's motion to vacate a judgment for alleged settlement nonpayment was granted, and the order was affirmed on appeal. The insurer disputed tender of the documents required by CPLR 5003-a (a). The Appellate Term, Second Department, relied on the reasons stated in the companion appeal decided the same day, Elite Psychological Servs., P.C. v Country-Wide Ins. Co., No. 2025-466 Q C.
Appellate Term, Second Department
Feb 27, 2026
2026 NY Slip Op 50687(U)
Insurer prevailed
A settling insurer's 21-day payment obligation begins upon actual receipt of a duly executed release and stipulation of discontinuance mailed to it. The provider obtained judgment under CPLR 5003-a (e) for alleged nonpayment of a settlement. The insurer's affidavit described counsel's mail-receipt practices and expressly denied receipt of the required documents, establishing prima facie that its payment obligation under CPLR 5003-a (a) had not been triggered. The provider neither rebutted that showing nor supplied proof of tender. The Appellate Term, Second Department, affirmed the order granting the insurer's motion to vacate the settlement judgment.
Appellate Term, Second Department
Feb 27, 2026
2026 NY Slip Op 50676(U)
Insurer prevailed
The insurer's summary judgment motion dismissing the complaint was upheld on appeal. The provider sought consideration of an amended cross motion rejected as procedurally improper under CPLR 2214, or denial of the insurer's motion. The Appellate Term, Second Department, affirmed the order, insofar as appealed from, for the reasons stated in its prior Burke Physical Therapy v State Farm decision.
Appellate Term, Second Department
Feb 27, 2026
2026 NY Slip Op 50679(U)
Insurer prevailed
The insurer's motion to vacate a judgment for alleged settlement nonpayment was upheld on appeal. The insurer argued that failure to tender a release and discontinuance stipulation under CPLR 5003-a (a) left payment untriggered. The Appellate Term, Second Department, affirmed for the reasons stated in the companion appeal decided the same day, Elite Psychological Servs. v Country-Wide Ins. Co., No. 2025-466 Q C.
Appellate Term, Second Department
Feb 27, 2026
2026 NY Slip Op 50673(U)
Insurer prevailed
The insurer's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the first through eighth causes of action was upheld on appeal. The Appellate Term, Second Department, affirmed the order, insofar as appealed from, for the reasons stated in its prior Burke Physical Therapy v State Farm decision. The provider had sought consideration of amended opposition or denial of those branches of the cross motion.
Appellate Term, Second Department
Feb 27, 2026
2026 NY Slip Op 50674(U)
Insurer prevailed
The provider failed to rebut proof that the claim underlying its third cause of action had been paid. The Appellate Term, Second Department, affirmed the order, insofar as appealed from, granting the insurer's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The provider sought remittal for consideration of amended opposition or denial of the cross motion; the court relied on its prior Burke Physical Therapy v State Farm decision. Addressing an argument first raised at oral argument, the court acknowledged that the third claim was never denied but found no denial warranted: the insurer submitted an Explanation of Review showing payment and a deposited check, and the provider did not respond to that proof.
Appellate Term, Second Department
Feb 27, 2026
2026 NY Slip Op 50688(U)
Insurer prevailed
The insurer's motion to vacate the provider's judgment for alleged nonpayment of a no-fault settlement was granted. The insurer asserted that no duly executed release and discontinuance stipulation had been tendered under CPLR 5003-a (a). The Appellate Term, Second Department, affirmed for the reasons stated in Elite Psychological Servs., P.C. v Country-Wide Ins. Co., the companion appeal decided the same day, No. 2025-466 Q C.
Appellate Term, Second Department
Feb 27, 2026
2026 NY Slip Op 50677(U)
Split result
Interest on an unpaid settlement runs from tender of the settlement documents, rather than the settlement date, under CPLR 5003-a (e). The insurer sought to vacate a judgment entered on default under a no-fault settlement or eliminate interest and attorney's fees. It failed to establish that the settlement was unenforceable, and the provider's delay in entering judgment did not toll interest. The Appellate Term, Second Department, modified the order to provide compound statutory no-fault interest from December 1, 2011, when settlement documents were tendered, instead of the October 24, 2008 settlement date. It also vacated the $850 attorney's fee award because CPLR 5003-a (e) does not authorize that award, and otherwise affirmed.
Appellate Term, Second Department
Feb 27, 2026
2026 NY Slip Op 50684(U)
Split result
A settlement default judgment may not include a separate attorney's fee award under CPLR 5003-a (e). The provider obtained a judgment for an unpaid no-fault settlement, compound interest and attorney's fees. The insurer sought vacatur for failure to provide 14 days' notice under an alleged settlement modification. The provider's earlier motion to enter judgment supplied sufficient notice even if that modification was enforceable. Compound interest was proper because the accident preceded the April 5, 2002 effective date of 11 NYCRR 65-3.9 (a), which provides simple interest. The Appellate Term, Second Department, modified the order to vacate only the $850 attorney's fee award, leaving the remaining judgment intact.
Appellate Term, Second Department
Feb 27, 2026
2026 NY Slip Op 50681(U)
Insurer prevailed
The insurer's summary judgment motion dismissing the claims was granted, and the provider's discovery motion was denied as moot. The Appellate Term, Second Department, affirmed the order, insofar as appealed from, including denial as moot of the request to dismiss affirmative defenses, for the reasons stated in Burke 2 Physical Therapy, P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.
Appellate Term, Second Department
Feb 27, 2026
2026 NY Slip Op 50680(U)
Split result
The insurer's motion to vacate a CPLR 5003-a (e) judgment was granted only as to attorney fees. The Appellate Term, Second Department, modified the order and otherwise affirmed, leaving the remaining judgment for alleged failure to pay a settlement intact. It relied on the companion appeal Biofeedback & Psychological Servs. v Country-Wide Ins. Co., decided the same day, No. 2025-383 Q C.
Appellate Term, Second Department
Feb 27, 2026
2026 NY Slip Op 50678(U)
Insurer prevailed
The insurer's motion to vacate a judgment entered for alleged nonpayment of a settlement was granted, and that order was affirmed. The insurer argued that the provider had not tendered an executed release and discontinuance stipulation under CPLR 5003-a (a), so payment was not due. The Appellate Term, Second Department, relied on the companion appeal decided the same day, No. 2025-466 Q C.
Appellate Term, Second Department
Feb 20, 2026
2026 NY Slip Op 50672(U)
Insurer prevailed
A timely affidavit notifying MVAIC of an intention to file a claim is a condition precedent to recovery of no-fault benefits. The Appellate Term, Second Department, reversed the order, insofar as appealed from, and granted MVAIC's summary judgment motion dismissing the provider's complaint. Under Insurance Law § 5221 (a) (1), (a) (3), and (b) (2), compliance with the notice requirement must be established to show that the claimant is a covered person entitled to benefits. MVAIC established that it had not received the required affidavit, and the provider failed to establish that its assignor had submitted one.
Appellate Term, Second Department
Feb 13, 2026
2026 NY Slip Op 50212(U)
Insurer prevailed
MVAIC's motion for summary judgment dismissing the provider's assigned no-fault claims was granted on appeal. The Appellate Term, Second Department, reversed the Civil Court, Kings County, order denying the motion, for the reasons stated in Harmonized Acupuncture v MVAIC, the companion appeal decided the same day, No. 2025-984 K C.
Appellate Term, Second Department
Feb 13, 2026
2026 NY Slip Op 50211(U)
Insurer prevailed
A claimant must timely file an affidavit of intention to claim with MVAIC to qualify for no-fault benefits. The provider sought assigned benefits, and MVAIC moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Under Insurance Law § 5208 (a) (1), (3) and § 5221 (b) (2), timely filing is a condition precedent to payment and must be established to demonstrate covered-person status. MVAIC proved that it had not received the affidavit, and the provider failed to establish submission in opposition. The Appellate Term, Second Department, reversed the order, insofar as appealed from, and granted MVAIC's motion dismissing the complaint.
Appellate Term, Second Department
Feb 13, 2026
2026 NY Slip Op 50213(U)
Insurer prevailed
MVAIC's motion for summary judgment dismissing the provider's assigned no-fault claims was granted on appeal. The Appellate Term, Second Department, reversed the Civil Court, Kings County, order denying the motion, for the reasons stated in Harmonized Acupuncture v MVAIC, the companion appeal decided the same day, No. 2025-984 K C.
Appellate Term, Second Department
Feb 13, 2026
2026 NY Slip Op 50216(U)
Insurer prevailed
MVAIC's motion for summary judgment dismissing the provider's no-fault action was granted on appeal. The Appellate Term, Second Department, reversed the order, insofar as appealed from, for the reasons stated in the companion appeal Harmonized Acupuncture v MVAIC, decided the same day, No. 2025-984 K C.
Appellate Term, Second Department
Feb 13, 2026
2026 NY Slip Op 50214(U)
Insurer prevailed
MVAIC's motion for summary judgment dismissing the provider's no-fault action was granted on appeal. The Appellate Term, Second Department, reversed the order, insofar as appealed from, for the reasons stated in the companion appeal Harmonized Acupuncture v MVAIC, decided the same day, No. 2025-984 K C.
Appellate Term, Second Department
Feb 13, 2026
2026 NY Slip Op 50215(U)
Insurer prevailed
MVAIC's motion for summary judgment dismissing the provider's assigned no-fault claims was granted on appeal. The Appellate Term, Second Department, reversed the order, insofar as appealed from, for the reasons stated in the companion appeal decided the same day, No. 2025-984 K C.
Trial court, Second Department
Feb 25, 2026
2026 NY Slip Op 50235(U)
Provider prevailed
The insurer failed to establish that the collision was staged or that the transportation network company exclusion barred coverage. The Civil Court, Kings County, denied the insurer's CPLR 3212 motion for summary judgment dismissing the provider's assigned no-fault claims. The driver's EUO testimony about suspected passenger conduct was speculative, contradictory, inconsistent and conclusory, leaving factual issues concerning an intentional collision. The policy's transportation network company definition tracked Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1691 (1) (c). The vehicle was operating in Brooklyn through a car service using Limosys, which was not recognized as a transportation network company under that definition. The exclusion did not encompass livery, black car or for-hire use, and the insurer therefore failed to establish its alternative coverage defense.
Trial court, Second Department
Feb 13, 2026
2026 NY Slip Op 26033
Split result
A provider may arbitrate a claim for lost earnings incurred in attending an insurer-demanded EUO. Insurance Law § 5106 (b) encompasses reimbursement disputes arising from claim verification, and 11 NYCRR 65-3.5 (e) requires reimbursement. The Supreme Court, Kings County, nevertheless denied vacatur and confirmed the master arbitration award rejecting the provider's claim for lack of arbitral jurisdiction: that interpretation was plausible, and legal error alone did not warrant vacatur under CPLR article 75. The court ordered the American Arbitration Association to modify its request form and deemed service proper nunc pro tunc, but denied mandamus to compel the Superintendent to promulgate procedures because rulemaking was discretionary, without reaching the CPLR article 78 objection. Attorney's fees were denied; the court deemed the interest and fee issue academic.
Trial court, Second Department
Feb 6, 2026
2026 NY Slip Op 50180(U)
Insurer prevailed
A master arbitrator's affirmance of a no-fault award of at least $5,000 permits a de novo action under Insurance Law § 5106 (c). The Supreme Court, Kings County, denied the provider's motion to dismiss the insurer's de novo action. The provider argued that the master arbitrator merely affirmed the hearing arbitrator's award and did not independently award the statutory minimum. The court rejected that interpretation as an unreasonable restriction of the statute. De novo adjudication is available when the master arbitration determination results in an obligation to pay at least $5,000 in no-fault benefits, exclusive of interest and attorney fees, whether the master arbitrator affirms, reverses, or modifies.
