Appellate Division, Second Department
Apr 29, 2026
2026 NY Slip Op 02644
Insurer prevailed
The provider's additional attorney's fee request failed because it was first raised on reargument and lacked supporting documentation. Although the provider missed oral argument, Supreme Court decided the insurer's CPLR article 75 petition on the merits in the provider's favor, so CPLR 5015 (a) (1) did not permit default vacatur. Reargument did not provide an opportunity to introduce the previously unrequested fee relief. The fee for a court appeal from a master arbitration award is fixed by the court under 11 NYCRR 65-4.10 (j) (4), and an award requires proof of reasonably expended hours and reasonable compensation, supported by contemporaneous records stating dates, hours, and work performed. No documentation was submitted. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the judgment insofar as it did not award additional attorney's fees.
Appellate Division, Second Department
Apr 29, 2026
2026 NY Slip Op 02645
Insurer prevailed
The provider's second motion for additional attorney fees was untimely because it exceeded the court-ordered 30-day filing period. In an article 75 proceeding, Supreme Court found the provider entitled to fees under 11 NYCRR 65-4.10 (j) (4) and directed a motion with a supporting affirmation within 30 days. The provider filed its first motion late without explanation; that motion was denied for nonappearance at both calendar calls. Its second motion omitted any reference to the first and again failed to explain the delay. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the judgment, insofar as appealed from, awarding no additional fees. Following Miceli and Kihl, it enforced the court-ordered deadline; the provider's remaining contention lacked merit.
Appellate Division, Second Department
Apr 29, 2026
2026 NY Slip Op 02646
Insurer prevailed
The provider's fee-renewal motion failed because the asserted new information was previously available and its earlier omission was unjustified. Supreme Court had authorized additional article 75 attorney fees under 11 NYCRR 65-4.10 (j) (4), but denied the application because counsel's affirmation missed the briefing deadline. Counsel initially attributed the delay to tracking-software error, then sought renewal on the ground that the deadline had passed before the scheduling order was signed and uploaded. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the judgment, insofar as appealed from, awarding no additional fees. CPLR 2221 (e) (2) and (3) require facts that would change the determination and reasonable justification for not presenting them earlier. The provider supplied no reasonable justification; its remaining contention lacked merit.
Appellate Division, Second Department
Apr 29, 2026
2026 NY Slip Op 02651
Provider prevailed
The provider was entitled to the $1,360 arbitration fee and additional fees for its article 75 confirmation proceeding. Supreme Court granted the unopposed confirmation petition and directed submission of a fee affirmation, but the judgment awarded only $1,000 and omitted additional fees. The Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed the judgment, insofar as appealed from, awarded $1,360 under 11 NYCRR 65-4.6 (d), and remitted for determination of additional fees under 11 NYCRR 65-4.10 (j) (4). Confirmation constitutes a court appeal under the latter regulation. The record, certified under CPLR 2105, and judicial notice of the electronic filing established submission of counsel's affirmation. The record supplied no apparent basis for omitting the additional fees previously authorized.
Appellate Division, Second Department
Apr 15, 2026
2026 NY Slip Op 02235
Insurer prevailed
The provider failed to establish willful or contumacious discovery noncompliance warranting dismissal of the insurer's complaint. In the insurer's action under Insurance Law § 5106 (c) for de novo review of a no-fault claim, the provider obtained an order striking the complaint under CPLR 3126 for failure to produce the entire claims file. On reargument, Supreme Court vacated that relief and denied the provider's motion. Striking a pleading requires a clear showing of willful and contumacious conduct, given the policy favoring resolution on the merits. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed and did not reach the provider's remaining contention.
Appellate Division, Second Department
Apr 15, 2026
2026 NY Slip Op 02236
Insurer prevailed
The provider failed to show that the insurer's noncompliance with discovery was willful or contumacious. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the order restoring the insurer's complaint in an action under Insurance Law § 5106 (c) for a de novo determination of the provider's no-fault claim. The provider had obtained an order striking the complaint under CPLR 3126 for failure to produce the entire no-fault claims file as previously ordered. The Supreme Court, Kings County, vacated that ruling on reargument and denied the provider's request to strike. Discovery sanctions lie within the trial court's discretion, but striking a pleading requires a clear showing of willful and contumacious noncompliance. The provider did not establish that conduct.
Appellate Division, First Department
Apr 2, 2026
2026 NY Slip Op 02035
The responding insurer's post-decision submission of a coverage disclaimer defeated jurisdiction over the loss-transfer arbitration. The petitioning no-fault insurer sought reimbursement under Insurance Law § 5105 after paying its insureds' claims. The other vehicle's insurer had disclaimed because the vehicle was not listed as a covered auto, but submitted its disclaimer to Arbitration Forums Inc. only after the award, through a Post-Decision Inquiry. The Appellate Division, First Department, reversed confirmation, granted vacatur, and dismissed the petition. The submission satisfied AFI rule 3-9 and defeated jurisdiction under AFI rule 2-4. Under 11 NYCRR 65-4.11 (a) (6), the good-faith lack-of-coverage defense made mandatory arbitration inapplicable absent that insurer's specific written consent.
Trial court, Second Department
Apr 30, 2026
2026 NY Slip Op 50620(U)
Insurer prevailed
MVAIC established available insurance coverage through insurance information entered in an uncertified police report. The Civil Court, Kings County, granted MVAIC summary judgment, denied the provider's cross motion and dismissed the action with prejudice. The report's entries reflecting production of statutorily required identification, registration and insurance documents were admissible under the business-records exception, unlike subjective verbal accounts of accident causation. The court relied on Vehicle and Traffic Law §§ 311 (10), 312, 319 (3) and 600, and 15 NYCRR 32.12, distinguishing Yassin v Blackman. The provider offered no admissible rebuttal to the showing that the vehicle was insured. Available coverage made it unnecessary to decide MVAIC's additional defense concerning receipt of a notice of intent to make a claim.
Trial court, Second Department
Apr 15, 2026
2026 NY Slip Op 50539(U)
Provider prevailed
A provider's fee-coding expert need not hold a certified coder title if the expert demonstrates the requisite subject-matter expertise. The Civil Court, Kings County, granted the provider's summary judgment motion only to establish its prima facie entitlement under CPLR 3212 (g) and denied the insurer's cross motion. The insurer failed to authenticate the policy and exhaustion ledger through a proper business-records foundation. The provider's owner's affidavit asserting full compliance with verification requests raised a factual dispute, and the interval between the asserted response and the denials raised timeliness issues. The owner's qualified fee-coding affidavit also disputed the insurer's certified coder's calculations. Under CPLR 3212, the competing expert opinions presented factual issues for trial.
Trial court, Second Department
Apr 13, 2026
2026 NY Slip Op 50519(U)
Split result
The provider's substitution of counsel and prompt prosecution excused delay under CPLR 3216, but interest was suspended. The Civil Court, Kings County, denied the insurer's motion to dismiss the assigned no-fault action for want of prosecution. CPLR 3216 permits rather than requires dismissal for unreasonable neglect to proceed, and public policy favors resolution on the merits. New counsel filed opposition and a notice of trial within five days of substitution, and the provider established a potentially meritorious cause of action. The court found the delay excusable but stayed interest from March 10, 2022 through March 26, 2025, so that the provider would not benefit from the delay.
Trial court, Second Department
Apr 13, 2026
2026 NY Slip Op 50513(U)
Insurer prevailed
The insurer established mailing of unanswered verification requests through proof of uniform company mailing procedures. The Civil Court, Richmond County, granted the insurer's CPLR 3212 motion for summary judgment dismissing the provider's assigned no-fault claim. The claims specialist described procedures ensuring proper mailing, and the provider did not dispute that the requests remained unanswered. Failure to explain the requests' underlying rationale did not undermine mailing proof. The specialist's residence in another state also did not defeat familiarity with uniform procedures or rebut the mailing presumption. Under 11 NYCRR 65-3.5 (c) and 65-3.2 (c), verification must relate rationally to the claim, but substantive objections are distinct from challenges to mailing procedures.
