# Can a no-fault insurer deny or delay payment because workers’ compensation or another insurer is primary?

**Short answer: Settled at the Appellate Division, no conflicting department.** The governing rules are uniform where they have been decided. Workers' compensation is primary over no-fault (Insurance Law § 5102 [b] [2]; Arvatz, 1st Dept 1991; Quick, 3d Dept 2024), and the Workers' Compensation Board has primary jurisdiction over whether it applies (Court of Appeals: O'Rourke, Botwinick, Liss, not in the database), so a court faced with an insurer's showing of 'potential merit' must hold the no-fault claim in abeyance for a prompt Board application rather than decide employment status itself (2d Dept: LMK 2009, Dunn 2010; App Term 1st and 2d follow), while an insurer that offers no competent proof gets no referral and the defense fails (2d Dept: Westchester v American Tr. 2009, Abdelhaq 2007; 1st Dept: Global Liberty v North Shore 2019). As to another motor vehicle insurer, the first insurer notified must pay and arbitrate priority (1st Dept: M.N. Dental 2011; 2d Dept: Unitrin v Brand 2014, App Term 2d SZ Med. 2005). No department disagrees. The one open seam is preclusion: the Second Department holds the WC 'offset' is not a lack-of-coverage defense and is precluded without a timely denial (Westchester v Lincoln Gen. 2009, lv denied 13 NY3d 714), but App Term 2d treated an actual Board award as a lack of coverage that is not precluded (Active Care v Hartford 2018), and a 2005 Civil Court upheld an arbitrator's ruling that the defense is an exception to preclusion (JSI 2005).

Scope: Deciding this question means ruling, in a claim for first-party no-fault benefits (action, arbitration, or article 75 review of the award), on the insurer's position that someone else must pay first. Mostly that is workers' compensation: whether the injured person may have been an employee injured in the course of employment (including livery and black-car drivers, the Black Car Fund and the Uninsured Employers' Fund), whether the court must defer to the Workers' Compensation Board's primary jurisdiction and hold the claim in abeyance, whether the insurer's proof shows the defense's potential merit, whether the claim fails because the Board awarded compensation or the claimant never applied to the Board, and whether the defense is precluded by an untimely denial. It also covers the mirror rule for another motor vehicle insurer: under 11 NYCRR 65-3.12 (b) and 65-4.11 (a) (6) the first insurer notified must pay and arbitrate any priority dispute with the other insurer, unless it is not 'otherwise liable' at all (a lack of coverage).

- Decisions: 79 in the database, the most recent decided 2026-05-05
- Page: https://www.beynensonlaw.com/no-fault-topics/workers-comp-priority/

## Leading authorities

- [LMK Psychological Serv., P.C. v American Tr. Ins. Co. (2009 NY Slip Op 06004)](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/lmk-psychological-serv-p-c-v-american-tr-ins-co-2009-ny-slip-op06004/) — Appellate Division, Second Department, 2009. Board has primary jurisdiction; courts must refer, not decide, WC bar: The trial court erred in dismissing no-fault claims as barred by Workers' Compensation Law § 11 where the Board had made no determination; the Board has primary jurisdiction over coverage under the Workers' Compensation Law, so the claims had to be referred to it and the cross motion decided afterwards.
- [M.N. Dental Diagnostics, P.C. v Government Empls. Ins. Co. (2011 NY Slip Op 01333)](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/m-n-dental-diagnostics-p-c-v-government-empls-ins-co-2011-ny-slip-op01333/) — Appellate Division, First Department, 2011. First insurer notified pays; priority dispute goes to arbitration: GEICO's denial on the ground that another insurer (Fidelity) was responsible raised a priority-of-payment dispute, not a coverage question (11 NYCRR 65-4.11 [a] [6]); as the first insurer notified it had to pay the provider, and the dispute between insurers belongs in mandatory arbitration.
- [Quick v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (2024 NY Slip Op 06268)](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/quick-v-state-farm-mut-auto-ins-co-2024-ny-slip-op-06268/) — Appellate Division, Third Department, 2024. WC primary even with uninsured employer; seek WC first: Because workers' compensation is primary to no-fault, an employee injured in the course of employment must first seek workers' compensation, through the Uninsured Employers' Fund where the employer had no coverage, before no-fault benefits; summary judgment dismissing his no-fault action was affirmed, with eligibility for the Board to decide first.
- [Matter of Global Liberty Ins. Co. of N.Y. v North Shore Family Chiropractic, PC (2019 NY Slip Op 08951)](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/matter-of-global-liberty-ins-co-of-n-y-v-north-shore-family-chiropractic-pc-2019ny-slip-op-08951/) — Appellate Division, First Department, 2019. Insurer must prove course of employment to deny on WC: The insurer's petition to vacate an award for the provider was dismissed: it failed to establish that the livery driver was injured in the course of employment (his TLC license was issued that day and there was no evidence he was on duty or carrying a passenger), so its workers' compensation denial was not proper.
- [Westchester Med. Ctr. v Lincoln Gen. Ins. Co. (2009 NY Slip Op 02589)](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/westchester-med-ctr-v-lincoln-gen-ins-co-2009-ny-slip-op-02589/) — Appellate Division, Second Department, 2009. WC offset is not a coverage defense; precluded if not timely: Summary judgment for the hospital: the insurer raised no triable issue on workers' compensation coverage (investigator's hearsay only), and its possible entitlement to offset workers' compensation recovery is not a lack-of-coverage defense, so it is subject to the 30-day denial requirement.
- [A.B. Med. Servs., PLLC v American Tr. Ins. Co. (2009 NY Slip Op 29271)](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/a-b-med-servs-pllc-v-american-tr-ins-co-2009-ny-slip-op-29271/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2009. Model order: abeyance pending Board, 90-day conditional dismissal: The insurer's proof raised a question of fact whether the assignor was acting as an employee, which the Board must resolve first; the provider's summary judgment motion was to be held in abeyance pending a prompt Board application, and dismissed if no proof of an application was filed within 90 days.
- O'Rourke v Long, 41 NY2d 219 (not in the database). Where WC availability turns on questions of fact or mixed questions, the claimant may not choose the courts; the Board decides first. Cited by about 33 decisions in the database.
- Botwinick v Ogden, 59 NY2d 909 (not in the database). Primary jurisdiction over the applicability of the Workers' Compensation Law is vested in the Board; courts should not express views pending its determination (quoted in Dunn and most App Term decisions).
- Liss v Trans Auto Sys., 68 NY2d 15 (not in the database). If the issue was not litigated before the Board, the court should remit to the Board; a party without the chance to participate in the Board hearing is not bound by it (Lutheran).
- Arvatz v Empire Mut. Ins. Co., 171 AD2d 262 (not in the database). As between no-fault and workers' compensation, WC is primary and the injured person may not elect; employee vs independent contractor status of a livery driver is best decided by the Board.
- Lanpont v Savvas Cab Corp., 244 AD2d 208 (not in the database). A WC defense warrants Board review only where the record shows its 'potential merit' (A.B. Med. 2005 and trial courts).
- Matter of Pacific Ins. Co. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 150 AD2d 455 (not in the database). Disputes between insurers about responsibility for first-party benefits must go to mandatory arbitration under § 5105 (b) (relied on by M.N. Dental and SZ Med.).
- Paramount Ins. Co. v Miccio, 169 AD2d 761, lv denied 78 NY2d 851 (not in the database). Which insurer must pay first-party benefits is an inter-company dispute subject to mandatory arbitration (M.N. Dental).
- Dietrick v Kemper Ins. Co., 76 NY2d 248 (not in the database). No-fault benefits are reduced by workers' compensation recoverable under § 5102 (b) (2) (cited in Quick).

## Governing regulations

Whether workers' compensation applies (employment, course of employment) is for the Workers' Compensation Board, which has primary jurisdiction; its primacy comes from Insurance Law § 5102 (b) (2) and the Workers' Compensation Law, not Part 65.

- [11 NYCRR 65-3.16 (a) (9)](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/no-fault-regulations/11-nycrr-65-3-16/#a-9): When the applicant is entitled to workers' compensation for the same accident, the compensation carrier is the sole source of reimbursement for medical expenses (Insurance Law 5102 (b) (2)).
- [11 NYCRR 65-3.12 (b) (1)](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/no-fault-regulations/11-nycrr-65-3-12/#b-1): In a priority dispute among insurers otherwise liable, the first insurer given notice pays the claimant and the insurers settle it in mandatory arbitration; under the case law another insurer's priority is no defense to the claim.
- [11 NYCRR 65-1.1 (d)](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/no-fault-regulations/11-nycrr-65-1-1/#d) (First-Party Benefits) [also relevant]: First-party benefits are reduced by amounts recovered or recoverable under workers' compensation, social security disability or article 9 disability laws; under the case law this makes compensation primary for lost earnings as 65-3.16 (a) (9) does for medical expenses.
- [11 NYCRR 65-4.11 (a) (6)](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/no-fault-regulations/11-nycrr-65-4-11/#a-6) [also relevant]: A controversy between insurers over the obligation to pay first-party benefits (priority or source of payment) is not a coverage question and goes to mandatory arbitration; a good-faith lack-of-coverage defense is not arbitrable without consent.
- [11 NYCRR 65-3.8 (c)](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/no-fault-regulations/11-nycrr-65-3-8/#c) [also relevant]: The insurer must pay or deny within 30 calendar days after proof of claim; the Second Department holds the workers' compensation offset is not a lack-of-coverage defense, so it is precluded without a timely denial (an actual Board award has been treated differently).

## Categories

- **Referred to WC Board**: The court (or an arbitrator whose award the court upholds) holds that the insurer's proof (the NF-2 or EUO statement that the claimant was working, a police report showing a taxi or livery car, an employer's report, the claimant's own admission) raises an issue whether the injured person was an employee acting in the course of employment, that this issue is within the Workers' Compensation Board's primary jurisdiction, and that the court may not decide it. Result: motions held in abeyance or the action stayed pending a prompt application to the Board (often with a 90-day conditional-dismissal clause), remittal 'following a prompt application to the Workers' Compensation Board', dismissal expressly without prejudice so the Board can decide, an award vacated so the issue can be resubmitted to the Board (Lutheran), or affirmance of such an order.
- **WC primary: claim fails**: The no-fault claim fails on the workers' compensation ground: the Board has found the injury work-related or awarded compensation for it (Active Care v Hartford 2018); the claimant must first seek workers' compensation, even where the employer was uninsured (Uninsured Employers' Fund) or the Black Car Fund pays, and has not (Quick 2024); the claimant failed to make the proper Board application required by an earlier abeyance or stay order, so the complaint is dismissed (A.B. Med. 2012 and 2014, Sama 2018, Compas 2019); or the court or arbitrator finds the claimant was injured in the course of employment and upholds the denial.
- **WC defense not shown**: The court (or an arbitrator whose award is upheld) rejects the workers' compensation defense on its merits or for want of proof: the insurer did not show the defense's 'potential merit' or that the claimant was in the course of employment (speculation, an adjuster's conclusion, an investigator's hearsay, an unsworn or inadmissible employer report, a license issued that day, no proof the driver was on duty: A.B. Med. 2005, Westchester v American Tr. 2009, Global Liberty v North Shore 2019, Central Radiology 2013, Administrative Assets 2009); the claimant's own workers' compensation claim had been denied and the insurer did not prove an employer (Global Liberty v Abdelhaq 2007); or the availability of workers' compensation does not deprive the court of jurisdiction and the insurer offered nothing more (Happy Apple 2021). Result: claimant's motion granted, or the insurer's motion, petition to stay or vacate, or request for referral denied on this point.
- **WC defense precluded**: The court holds that the workers' compensation defense is not a lack-of-coverage defense but an offset subject to the 30-day preclusion rule, so an insurer that did not deny the claim on that ground within 30 days (or did not deny it at all) is precluded from raising it (Westchester v Lincoln Gen. 2009, A.B. Med. 2009 [Zorrilla] as to the untimely claims, Friedman 2016, Y.A.M. 2019, Corona 2009, Lenox Hill v Global Liberty 2009, Advantage Radiology v ACE 2026); or that the insurer waived the Board's primary jurisdiction by invoking it only at trial years later (Sunrise 2018).
- **First insurer must pay**: The court applies 11 NYCRR 65-3.12 (b), 65-4.11 (a) (6) and Insurance Law § 5105 (b): a dispute over which motor vehicle insurer is primarily responsible is a priority-of-payment dispute, not a coverage question; the first insurer to whom notice of claim was given must pay the claimant irrespective of priority or source of payment, and must pursue the other insurer in mandatory intercompany arbitration; the court cannot adjudicate priority in the claimant's action, discovery on the 'other insurer is primary' defense is improper, and a verification request for a declaration of no other insurance does not toll the 30 days (M.N. Dental 2009/2011, SZ Med. 2005, Pomona 2012, Ave T 2007, Yumi 2026; Unitrin v Brand 2014 as to first-instance payment).
- **No coverage, not priority**: The court holds that the defendant insurer is not 'otherwise liable' for first-party benefits (its policy covers neither the injured person nor the vehicle, e.g. a ride-share use excluded from the owner's policy, or a policy limited to another car), so there is no priority dispute among liable insurers, 65-3.12 (b) and mandatory intercompany arbitration do not apply, and the insurer may defend on lack of coverage or is not liable (Parisien v Farmers 2022, Hereford v Corona 2021, RX Warehouse v Erie 2019).

## Decisions (79)

Highest court first, then department, newest first. Each entry: court and date, the category, [central] where the result turns on this question or [also decides], then a one-sentence summary written by a language model from the decision and checked by a second reading.

### Appellate Division, First Department

- [Matter of Global Liberty Ins. Co. of N.Y. v North Shore Family Chiropractic, PC (2019 NY Slip Op 08951)](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/matter-of-global-liberty-ins-co-of-n-y-v-north-shore-family-chiropractic-pc-2019ny-slip-op-08951/) — Appellate Division, First Department, 2019-12-12 — WC defense not shown [central]: Held the insurer failed to prove the livery driver was injured in the course of employment, since his TLC license issued that day and nothing showed he was on duty or carrying a passenger, so its WC denial was improper.
- [M.N. Dental Diagnostics, P.C. v Government Empls. Ins. Co. (2011 NY Slip Op 01333)](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/m-n-dental-diagnostics-p-c-v-government-empls-ins-co-2011-ny-slip-op01333/) — Appellate Division, First Department, 2011-02-22 — First insurer must pay [central]: Held the insurer's denial because another motor vehicle insurer was responsible raised a priority-of-payment dispute, not a coverage question, so as first insurer notified it had to pay and the dispute belonged in mandatory intercompany arbitration.

### Appellate Division, Second Department

- [State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v Amtrust N. Am., Inc. (2024 NY Slip Op 00646)](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/state-farm-mut-auto-ins-co-v-amtrust-n-am-inc-2024-ny-slip-op-00646/) — Appellate Division, Second Department, 2024-02-07 — Referred to WC Board [also decides]: Held the Workers' Compensation Board had primary jurisdiction over whether the subrogors' medical expenses were compensable, so the no-fault insurer's reimbursement claim had to be referred to the Board before the motion was decided.
- [Matter of Unitrin Direct/Warner Ins. Co. v Brand (2014 NY Slip Op 05887)](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/matter-of-unitrin-direct-warner-ins-co-v-brand-2014-ny-slip-op05887/) — Appellate Division, Second Department, 2014-08-20 — First insurer must pay [also decides]: Held the insured's own insurer's payment of first-party benefits implied no choice of Florida law because 65-3.12 required it to pay in the first instance, any priority dispute with the other insurer being for the insurers to resolve.
- [Dunn v American Tr. Ins. Co. (2010 NY Slip Op 01757)](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/dunn-v-american-tr-ins-co-2010-ny-slip-op-01757/) — Appellate Division, Second Department, 2010-03-02 — Referred to WC Board [central]: Held the insurer's motion raised factual questions whether the claimant was an independent contractor or a car service base's employee, which the Board has primary jurisdiction to decide, so the matter had to be referred to the Board before deciding the motion.
- [LMK Psychological Serv., P.C. v American Tr. Ins. Co. (2009 NY Slip Op 06004)](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/lmk-psychological-serv-p-c-v-american-tr-ins-co-2009-ny-slip-op06004/) — Appellate Division, Second Department, 2009-07-28 — Referred to WC Board [central]: Held the trial court erred in dismissing claims as barred by Workers' Compensation Law § 11 absent a Board determination, because the Board has primary jurisdiction, and remitted for a new determination following a prompt Board application.
- [Westchester Med. Ctr. v Lincoln Gen. Ins. Co. (2009 NY Slip Op 02589)](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/westchester-med-ctr-v-lincoln-gen-ins-co-2009-ny-slip-op-02589/) — Appellate Division, Second Department, 2009-03-31 — WC defense precluded [central]: Held the insurer's possible entitlement to offset workers' compensation recovery was not a lack-of-coverage defense, so it was subject to the 30-day denial rule, and an investigator's hearsay raised no triable issue of workers' compensation coverage.
- [Westchester Med. Ctr. v American Tr. Ins. Co. (2009 NY Slip Op 01979)](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/westchester-med-ctr-v-american-tr-ins-co-2009-ny-slip-op-01979/) — Appellate Division, Second Department, 2009-03-17 — WC defense not shown [also decides]: Declined to dismiss and refer the matter to the Workers' Compensation Board because the insurer offered no competent evidence in admissible form that workers' compensation benefits were available.
- [Matter of Lutheran Med. Ctr. v Hereford Ins. Co. (2007 NY Slip Op 06884)](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/matter-of-lutheran-med-ctr-v-hereford-ins-co-2007-ny-slip-op-06884/) — Appellate Division, Second Department, 2007-09-18 — Referred to WC Board [central]: Held the award vacated and the employment question resubmitted to the Workers' Compensation Board, because the insurer, never notified of the Board hearing, was not bound by the Board's finding that the livery driver was not working.
- [Matter of Global Liberty Ins. Co. v Abdelhaq (2007 NY Slip Op 00643)](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/matter-of-global-liberty-ins-co-v-abdelhaq-2007-ny-slip-op-00643/) — Appellate Division, Second Department, 2007-01-30 — WC defense not shown [central]: Refused to stay arbitration because the insured's workers' compensation claim had been denied and the insurer offered no evidence that the cab dispatch base was his employer at the time of the accident.

### Appellate Division, Third Department

- [Quick v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (2024 NY Slip Op 06268)](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/quick-v-state-farm-mut-auto-ins-co-2024-ny-slip-op-06268/) — Appellate Division, Third Department, 2024-12-12 — WC primary: claim fails [central]: Affirmed dismissal of the no-fault action because workers' compensation is primary and the injured employee had to seek it first, through the Uninsured Employers' Fund where his employer lacked coverage, before claiming no-fault benefits.

### Appellate Term, First Department

- [Sunrise Acupuncture PC v Global Liberty Ins. Co. of N.Y. (2018 NY Slip Op 51887(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/sunrise-acupuncture-pc-v-global-liberty-ins-co-of-n-y-2018-ny-slip-op51887u/) — Appellate Term, First Department, 2018-12-20 — WC defense precluded [central]: Held the insurer could not invoke the Board's primary jurisdiction for the first time at trial nearly seven years into the litigation, having only pleaded it among many affirmative defenses, because doing so would merely delay the case.
- [AEE Med. Diagnostic, P.C. v Travelers Prop. Cas. Co. of Am. (2017 NY Slip Op 51209(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/aee-med-diagnostic-p-c-v-travelers-prop-cas-co-of-am-2017-ny-slip-op-51209u/) — Appellate Term, First Department, 2017-09-22 — Referred to WC Board [central]: Reversed an order directing trial on whether workers' compensation was primary because the assignor's statement raised triable issues of course of employment, which the Board must decide first; motions to be redetermined after a prompt Board application.
- [Pomona Med. Diagnostic P.C. v Adirondack Ins. Co. (2012 NY Slip Op 51165(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/pomona-med-diagnostic-p-c-v-adirondack-ins-co-2012-ny-slip-op51165u/) — Appellate Term, First Department, 2012-06-25 — First insurer must pay [central]: Held discovery on the insurer's defense that another carrier was primarily liable palpably improper, because under 65-3.12 (b) the insurer cannot rely on that defense to deny the no-fault claim.
- [Devonshire Surgical Facility, L.L.C. v Hereford Ins. Co. (2010 NY Slip Op 52297(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/devonshire-surgical-facility-l-l-c-v-hereford-ins-co-2010-ny-slip-op52297u/) — Appellate Term, First Department, 2010-12-07 — Referred to WC Board [central]: Held the insurer's submissions raised a factual issue whether the loss occurred in the course of employment, within the Board's primary jurisdiction, so the summary judgment motions should have been held in abeyance pending a Board determination.
- [M.N. Dental Diagnostics, P.C. v Government Empls. Ins. Co. (2009 NY Slip Op 29266)](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/m-n-dental-diagnostics-p-c-v-government-empls-ins-co-2009-ny-slip-op-29266/) — Appellate Term, First Department, 2009-06-19 — First insurer must pay [central]: Held the insurer's objection that the rental car's insurer should pay raised a priority-of-payment dispute, not coverage, since its own policy covered substitute vehicles, so as first insurer notified it had to pay and arbitrate with the other insurer.

### Appellate Term, Second Department

- [Active Care Med. Supply Corp. v Global Liberty Ins. (2021 NY Slip Op 50257(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/active-care-med-supply-corp-v-global-liberty-ins-2021-ny-slip-op50257u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2021-03-26 — Referred to WC Board [central]: Ordered a new trial because the court should have considered the certified EUO transcript in deciding whether the insurer showed an issue whether the assignor was acting in the course of employment so that workers' compensation might be available.
- [Madison Prods. of USA, Inc. v American Tr. Ins. Co. (2020 NY Slip Op 50749(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/madison-prods-of-usa-inc-v-american-tr-ins-co-2020-ny-slip-op50749u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2020-06-26 — Referred to WC Board [central]: Held the insurer's proof raised an issue whether the assignor was injured in the course of employment, so four claims were properly held in abeyance for the Board, while a hearing must decide whether the fifth claim's WC defense was precluded by untimely denial.
- [Compas Med., P.C. v American Tr. Ins. Co. (2019 NY Slip Op 52053(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/compas-med-p-c-v-american-tr-ins-co-2019-ny-slip-op-52053u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2019-12-13 — WC primary: claim fails [central]: Held the complaint properly dismissed because the provider failed to comply with the prior abeyance order requiring a proper application to the Board, rejecting the argument that a Board claim would be time-barred where the insurer timely denied on that ground.
- [Pavlova v American Tr. Ins. Co. (2019 NY Slip Op 51948(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/pavlova-v-american-tr-ins-co-2019-ny-slip-op-51948u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2019-11-29 — Referred to WC Board [central]: Held, for the reasons of a companion decision, that the action was properly held in abeyance pending the Board's determination of whether the assignor was eligible for workers' compensation benefits.
- [Quality Health Prod., Inc. v American Tr. Ins. Co. (2019 NY Slip Op 51950(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/quality-health-prod-inc-v-american-tr-ins-co-2019-ny-slip-op51950u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2019-11-29 — Referred to WC Board [central]: Held the insurer's evidence raised an issue whether the assignor was acting in the course of employment, a question within the Board's primary jurisdiction, so the action was properly held in abeyance pending the Board's determination.
- [Y.A.M. Med. Supply, Inc. v Global Liberty Ins. Co. of NY (2019 NY Slip Op 51801(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/y-a-m-med-supply-inc-v-global-liberty-ins-co-of-ny-2019-ny-slip-op51801u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2019-11-01 — WC defense precluded [central]: Held the workers' compensation eligibility defense subject to preclusion, so the insurer's cross motion for abeyance pending a Board determination was properly denied because it failed to show it timely denied the claims on that ground.
- [Metro Psychological Servs., P.C. v Travelers Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. (2019 NY Slip Op 51150(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/metro-psychological-servs-p-c-v-travelers-prop-cas-ins-co-2019-ny-slip-op51150u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2019-07-12 — Referred to WC Board [central]: Held the insurer's evidence raised an issue whether the assignor was acting in the course of employment, which the Board must resolve, so the provider's summary judgment was reversed and the matter held in abeyance pending the Board's determination.
- [Active Care Med. Supply Corp. v American Tr. Ins. Co. (2019 NY Slip Op 50419(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/active-care-med-supply-corp-v-american-tr-ins-co-2019-ny-slip-op50419u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2019-03-22 — Referred to WC Board [central]: Held the insurer's evidence raised a fact issue whether the assignor was acting in the course of employment, so eligibility for workers' compensation had to be resolved first by the Board and the action was properly held in abeyance.
- [Active Care Med. Supply Corp. v Hartford Ins. Co. (2018 NY Slip Op 51590(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/active-care-med-supply-corp-v-hartford-ins-co-2018-ny-slip-op51590u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2018-11-09 — WC primary: claim fails [central]: Held, for the reasons of a companion decision, that the complaint was properly dismissed because the Board had awarded workers' compensation benefits for the injuries sustained in the accident.
- [Active Care Med. Supply Corp. v Hartford Ins. Co. (2018 NY Slip Op 51591(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/active-care-med-supply-corp-v-hartford-ins-co-2018-ny-slip-op51591u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2018-11-09 — WC primary: claim fails [central]: Held the complaint properly dismissed because the Board had awarded workers' compensation benefits for the injuries from this accident, a lack-of-coverage defense that may be raised regardless of the timeliness of the denial.
- [New Millennium Radiology, P.C. v American Tr. Ins. Co. (2018 NY Slip Op 50940(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/new-millennium-radiology-p-c-v-american-tr-ins-co-2018-ny-slip-op50940u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2018-06-15 — Referred to WC Board [central]: Held the insurer's evidence raised an issue whether the assignor was acting in the course of employment, so the action had to be held in abeyance pending a prompt Board application, with conditional dismissal if none was filed within 90 days.
- [Sama Physical Therapy, P.C. v Hereford Ins. Co. (2018 NY Slip Op 50737(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/sama-physical-therapy-p-c-v-hereford-ins-co-2018-ny-slip-op50737u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2018-05-18 — WC primary: claim fails [central]: Held the complaint properly dismissed under the conditional abeyance order because the provider never made a proper Board application, its late records-authorization form not complying with the order.
- [Metro Psychological Servs., P.C. v Travelers Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. (2017 NY Slip Op 51804(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/metro-psychological-servs-p-c-v-travelers-prop-cas-ins-co-2017-ny-slip-op51804u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2017-12-19 — Referred to WC Board [central]: Held the insurer's evidence raised an issue whether the assignor was acting in the course of employment, which the Board must resolve, so summary judgment for the provider was reversed and the matter held in abeyance pending the Board.
- [Compas Med., P.C. v American Tr. Ins. Co. (2017 NY Slip Op 51193(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/compas-med-p-c-v-american-tr-ins-co-2017-ny-slip-op-51193u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2017-09-15 — Referred to WC Board [central]: Affirmed, for the reasons stated in a companion appeal decided herewith, an order providing that the claims based on the assignor's alleged workers' compensation eligibility would be dismissed unless plaintiff filed proof of a Board filing within 90 days.
- [Compas Med., P.C. v American Tr. Ins. Co. (2017 NY Slip Op 51192(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/compas-med-p-c-v-american-tr-ins-co-2017-ny-slip-op-51192u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2017-09-15 — Referred to WC Board [central]: Held the insurer's proof raised an issue whether the assignor was acting as an employee, so WC benefits might be available and the Board must decide first; affirmed the 90-day conditional-dismissal order pending a Board filing.
- [Flatbush Chiropractic, P.C. v American Tr. Ins. Co. (2017 NY Slip Op 50105(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/flatbush-chiropractic-p-c-v-american-tr-ins-co-2017-ny-slip-op50105u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2017-01-20 — WC primary: claim fails [central]: Affirmed dismissal of the complaint because the provider never showed that its assignor made a proper Board application as the earlier 90-day order required; a database search showing no WC claim did not justify renewal.
- [Friedman v Allstate Ins. Co. (2016 NY Slip Op 50390(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/friedman-v-allstate-ins-co-2016-ny-slip-op-50390u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2016-03-18 — WC defense precluded [central]: Held the insurer precluded from asserting the assignor's possible WC eligibility because that defense is subject to preclusion and the insurer had denied the claims only for lack of medical necessity.
- [Compas Med., P.C. v American Tr. Ins. Co. (2015 NY Slip Op 51675(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/compas-med-p-c-v-american-tr-ins-co-2015-ny-slip-op51675u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2015-11-13 — Referred to WC Board [central]: Held the assignor's sworn NF-2 admission that he was injured in the course of employment raised a question for the Board's primary jurisdiction, so the provider's summary judgment motion was held in abeyance pending the Board's determination.
- [A.B. Med. Servs., PLLC v American Tr. Ins. Co. (2014 NY Slip Op 50502(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/a-b-med-servs-pllc-v-american-tr-ins-co-2014-ny-slip-op50502u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2014-04-02 — WC primary: claim fails [central]: Affirmed summary judgment dismissing the remaining claims because the providers did not show a proper WC application within the 90 days the earlier abeyance order allowed, or good cause against dismissal.
- [Great Health Care Chiropractic, P.C. v Lancer Ins. Co. (2014 NY Slip Op 50340(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/great-health-care-chiropractic-p-c-v-lancer-ins-co-2014-ny-slip-op50340u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2014-02-28 — Referred to WC Board [central]: Held the insurer's proof raised a triable issue whether the assignor was in the course of employment, an issue for the Board to resolve first, and affirmed holding both motions in abeyance pending a Board application.
- [Central Radiology Servs., P.C. v First Am. Ins. (2013 NY Slip Op 51031(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/central-radiology-servs-p-c-v-first-am-ins-2013-ny-slip-op51031u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2013-06-17 — WC defense not shown [central]: Held the workers' compensation defense lacked even potential merit because the administrator's affidavit asserted course of employment conclusorily without substantiating evidence.
- [W.H.O. Acupuncture, P.C. v American Tr. Ins. Co. (2013 NY Slip Op 50532(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/w-h-o-acupuncture-p-c-v-american-tr-ins-co-2013-ny-slip-op50532u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2013-04-08 — Referred to WC Board [central]: Held the insurer's admissible proof raised an issue whether the assignors were acting as employees, which the Board must resolve first, so both summary judgment motions were remitted pending a prompt Board application with a 90-day conditional dismissal.
- [Arce Med. & Diagnostic Svce v American Tr. Ins. Co. (2013 NY Slip Op 50531(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/arce-med-diagnostic-svce-v-american-tr-ins-co-2013-ny-slip-op50531u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2013-04-08 — Referred to WC Board [central]: Affirmed a stay of the action because the insurer's admissible proof raised an issue whether the assignor was acting as an employee, a question the Workers' Compensation Board must resolve in the first instance.
- [Parkway Pain Mgt., PLLC v American Tr. Ins. Co. (2013 NY Slip Op 50521(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/parkway-pain-mgt-pllc-v-american-tr-ins-co-2013-ny-slip-op50521u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2013-04-04 — Referred to WC Board [central]: Affirmed a stay pending the Board's determination because the insurer's proof, including the police accident report, raised a question of fact whether the assignor was acting as an employee, which the Board must resolve.
- [Alev Med. Supply, Inc. v American Tr. Ins. Co. (2012 NY Slip Op 52271(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/alev-med-supply-inc-v-american-tr-ins-co-2012-ny-slip-op52271u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2012-12-07 — WC primary: claim fails [central]: Affirmed dismissal of the complaint because, after a stay order requiring proof of a Board application within 90 days, the provider showed neither that the assignor applied to the Board nor good cause.
- [A.B. Med. Servs., PLLC v American Tr. Ins. Co. (2012 NY Slip Op 50764(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/a-b-med-servs-pllc-v-american-tr-ins-co-2012-ny-slip-op50764u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2012-04-25 — WC primary: claim fails [central]: Affirmed dismissal of the complaint because the providers did not show that a proper workers' compensation application had been made within the time set by the earlier abeyance order.
- [B.Y., M.D., P.C. v Global Liberty Ins. Co. of N.Y. (2012 NY Slip Op 50156(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/b-y-m-d-p-c-v-global-liberty-ins-co-of-n-y-2012-ny-slip-op50156u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2012-01-24 — Referred to WC Board [central]: Held the insurer's proof raised a question of fact whether the assignor was an employee, for the Board to resolve, so the providers' motion was remitted pending a prompt Board application with a 90-day conditional dismissal.
- [A.B. Med. Servs., PLLC v American Tr. Ins. Co. (2012 NY Slip Op 50076(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/a-b-med-servs-pllc-v-american-tr-ins-co-2012-ny-slip-op50076u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2012-01-17 — WC primary: claim fails [central]: Reinstated dismissal of the complaint, denying renewal because the providers offered no proof that a proper workers' compensation application was made or rejected, and noted the Board has primary jurisdiction over coverage.
- [Jamaica Med. Supply, Inc. v American Tr. Ins. Co. (2011 NY Slip Op 52371(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/jamaica-med-supply-inc-v-american-tr-ins-co-2011-ny-slip-op52371u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2011-12-23 — Referred to WC Board [central]: Held the insurer's admissible proof raised a triable issue whether the assignor was an employee, an issue for the Workers' Compensation Board first, and remitted the cross motion pending a prompt Board application with a 90-day dismissal clause.
- [B.Y., M.D., P.C. v American Tr. Ins. Co. (2010 NY Slip Op 51902(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/b-y-m-d-p-c-v-american-tr-ins-co-2010-ny-slip-op-51902u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2010-11-08 — Referred to WC Board [central]: Held the insurer's proof raised a question of fact whether the assignor was acting as an employee, which the Board must resolve first, and remitted both motions to be held in abeyance pending a prompt Board application with a 90-day clause.
- [D.A.V. Chiropractic, P.C. v American Tr. Ins. Co. (2010 NY Slip Op 51738(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/d-a-v-chiropractic-p-c-v-american-tr-ins-co-2010-ny-slip-op-51738u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2010-10-01 — Referred to WC Board [central]: Held the insurer's admissible evidence raised an issue whether the assignor was an employee, which the Board must decide first, so the judgment for the providers was vacated and the motions held in abeyance pending a prompt Board application.
- [AR Med. Rehabilitation, P.C. v American Tr. Ins. Co. (2010 NY Slip Op 50708(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/ar-med-rehabilitation-p-c-v-american-tr-ins-co-2010-ny-slip-op50708u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2010-04-13 — Referred to WC Board [central]: Held the insurer's admissible proof that the assignor was acting as an employee required Board resolution first, so its motion should have been held in abeyance pending a prompt Board application rather than denied without prejudice.
- [Ortho Pro Labs, Inc. v American Tr. Ins. Co. (2009 NY Slip Op 52693(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/ortho-pro-labs-inc-v-american-tr-ins-co-2009-ny-slip-op-52693u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2009-12-30 — Referred to WC Board [central]: Held the assignor's sworn statement on the no-fault application that he was injured in the course of employment raised a question of fact for the Board, affirming the stay pending a Board application and adding a 90-day dismissal clause.
- [Bath Med. Supply, Inc. v Harco Natl. Ins. Co. (2009 NY Slip Op 52278(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/bath-med-supply-inc-v-harco-natl-ins-co-2009-ny-slip-op-52278u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2009-11-05 — Referred to WC Board [central]: Held the Board had authority to determine the assignor's entitlement to workers' compensation, but the complaint should not have been dismissed; the motion was instead to be held in abeyance pending a prompt Board application with a 90-day clause.
- [Inwood Hill Med., P.C. v Metropolitan Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. (2009 NY Slip Op 51264(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/inwood-hill-med-p-c-v-metropolitan-prop-cas-ins-co-2009-ny-slip-op51264u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2009-06-18 — WC defense precluded [central]: Reversed a referral to the Workers' Compensation Board, holding the insurer, which never showed timely mailing of its denial, was precluded from asserting its only defense that the assignor was acting as an employee.
- [A.B. Med. Servs., PLLC v American Tr. Ins. Co. (2009 NY Slip Op 51263(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/a-b-med-servs-pllc-v-american-tr-ins-co-2009-ny-slip-op51263u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2009-06-18 — WC defense precluded [central]: Held the workers' compensation eligibility defense subject to preclusion, granting the provider judgment on claims not denied within 30 days, while the timely denied claims were held in abeyance pending a prompt Board application.
- [A.B. Med. Servs., PLLC v American Tr. Ins. Co. (2009 NY Slip Op 51261(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/a-b-med-servs-pllc-v-american-tr-ins-co-2009-ny-slip-op51261u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2009-06-18 — WC defense not shown [also decides]: Held the insurer's opposition papers did not establish sufficient facts to warrant holding the matter in abeyance pending a Workers' Compensation Board application.
- [A.B. Med. Servs., PLLC v American Tr. Ins. Co. (2009 NY Slip Op 29271)](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/a-b-med-servs-pllc-v-american-tr-ins-co-2009-ny-slip-op-29271/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2009-06-18 — Referred to WC Board [central]: Held the insurer's proof raised a question of fact whether the assignor was acting as an employee, which the Board must resolve first, so the provider's motion was held in abeyance pending a prompt Board application with a 90-day dismissal clause.
- [Infinity Health Prods., Ltd. v New York City Tr. Auth. (2008 NY Slip Op 52218(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/infinity-health-prods-ltd-v-new-york-city-tr-auth-2008-ny-slip-op-52218u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2008-10-30 — Referred to WC Board [central]: Reversed summary judgment for the provider because the insurer's proof raised a question whether the assignor was acting as an employee, which the Board must resolve, and directed the motion be held in abeyance pending a prompt Board application.
- [Response Equip., Inc. v American Tr. Ins. Co. (2007 NY Slip Op 51176(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/response-equip-inc-v-american-tr-ins-co-2007-ny-slip-op-51176u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2007-06-08 — Referred to WC Board [central]: Held the insurer's proof, including the police accident report, raised a question of fact whether the assignor was acting as an employee, so the matter was held in abeyance pending a prompt application to the Workers' Compensation Board.
- [A.B. Med. Servs. PLLC v American Tr. Ins. Co. (2005 NYSlipOp 50959(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/a-b-med-servs-pllc-v-american-tr-ins-co-2005-nyslipop-50959u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2005-06-09 — WC defense not shown [central]: Held the insurer failed to show the potential merit of its workers' compensation defense, offering only an adjuster's conclusion based on an old unsworn employer statement against sworn denials that the assignor was working, so the providers got summary judgment.
- [SZ Med., P.C. v Lancer Ins. Co. (2005 NY Slip Op 25112)](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/sz-med-p-c-v-lancer-ins-co-2005-ny-slip-op-25112/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2005-03-22 — First insurer must pay [central]: Held that the rental-car insurer, as the first insurer notified, had to pay, and that its claim that the renter's own insurer was primary was no defense but a priority dispute for mandatory intercompany arbitration.

### Trial courts in the First Department

- [Matter of Hereford Ins. Co. v Corona Med. PC (2021 NY Slip Op 50991(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/matter-of-hereford-ins-co-v-corona-med-pc-2021-ny-slip-op-50991u/) — Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County, 2021-10-20 — No coverage, not priority [central]: Held the first-insurer priority rule inapplicable because the insurer's policy covered only the assignor's own car, not the rented vehicle involved, so its denial raised lack of coverage, not a priority-of-payment dispute among liable insurers.
- [Lenox Hill Radiology, P.C. v American Tr. Ins. Co. (2008 NY Slip Op 50330(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/lenox-hill-radiology-p-c-v-american-tr-ins-co-2008-ny-slip-op50330u/) — Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County, 2008-02-25 — Referred to WC Board [central]: Held the NF-2 admitting the claimant was working and a police report showing the vehicle was a taxi gave potential merit to the workers' compensation defense, so the complaint was dismissed without prejudice for the Board to decide.

### Trial courts in the Second Department

- [Alternative PLM Acupuncture, P.C v Nationwide Gen. Ins Co (2026 NY Slip Op 51325(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/alternative-plm-acupuncture-p-c-v-nationwide-gen-ins-co-2026-ny-slip-op-51325u/) — Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County, 2026-05-05 — WC defense precluded [central]: Held the workers' compensation eligibility defense was neither lack of coverage nor a fee-schedule defense, so the insurer's untimely denial of the first bill precluded it, while summary judgment was granted on the timely denied second bill.
- [Yumi Acupuncture, P.C. v 21st Century Ins. Co. (2026 NY Slip Op 50433(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/yumi-acupuncture-p-c-v-21st-century-ins-co-2026-ny-slip-op-50433u/) — Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County, 2026-03-23 — First insurer must pay [central]: Held that the first insurer notified had to pay irrespective of any interinsurer priority dispute, which belongs in mandatory arbitration, so its request for a Declaration of No Other Insurance was a nullity that did not toll the 30 days.
- [Advantage Radiology, P.C. v ACE Am. Ins. Co. (2026 NY Slip Op 50245(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/advantage-radiology-p-c-v-ace-am-ins-co-2026-ny-slip-op-50245u/) — Civil Court of the City of New York, Richmond County, 2026-01-27 — WC defense precluded [central]: Denied the insurer's motion to dismiss despite a Board finding that the accident was work-related, because the workers' compensation defense must be raised in a timely denial and the insurer showed no timely denial or verification request.
- [American Tr. Ins. Co. v PDA NY Chiropractic, P.C. (2023 NY Slip Op 50938(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/american-tr-ins-co-v-pda-ny-chiropractic-p-c-2023-ny-slip-op50938u/) — Supreme Court, Kings County, 2023-09-01 — WC primary: claim fails [also decides]: Held the insurer was entitled to pend the bills for livery-fund information on the assignor's possible workers' compensation eligibility, and that the arbitrator arbitrarily excused it based on the assignor's testimony, so those bills were premature.
- [American Tr. Ins. Co. v Nexray Med. Imaging PC (2023 NY Slip Op50538(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/american-tr-ins-co-v-nexray-med-imaging-pc-2023-ny-slip-op50538u/) — Supreme Court, Kings County, 2023-05-28 — WC defense not shown [also decides]: Held that after the WC Board found no compensable work accident, the insurer's earlier WC denial did not restart its time to deny, so the later medical-necessity defense was precluded and the award stood.
- [American Tr. Ins. Co. v North Shore Family Chiropractic PC (2023 NY Slip Op 50208(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/american-tr-ins-co-v-north-shore-family-chiropractic-pc-2023-ny-slipop-50208u/) — Supreme Court, Kings County, 2023-03-20 — WC defense not shown [central]: Upheld the arbitrator's rejection of the course-of-employment defense because a police report showing TC plates and no passengers, without a livery policy, was speculation lacking potential merit and did not require referral to the Board.
- [Parisien v Farmers Ins. (2022 NY Slip Op 22309)](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/parisien-v-farmers-ins-2022-ny-slip-op-22309/) — Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County, 2022-09-30 — No coverage, not priority [central]: Held the first-insurer-pays rule and mandatory intercompany arbitration did not apply because the insurer denied for lack of coverage, its policy excluding ride-sharing use, rather than claiming another insurer was responsible, so there was no priority dispute.
- [Ultimate Massage Therapy, P.C. v Utica Mut. Ins. Co. (2020 NY Slip Op 51613(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/ultimate-massage-therapy-p-c-v-utica-mut-ins-co-2020-ny-slip-op51613u/) — Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County, 2021-04-30 — Referred to WC Board [central]: Held the insurer's summary-judgment motion in abeyance pending a Board determination, because the applicability of the Workers' Compensation Law is for the Board, even though the insurer's evidence of employment was inadmissible.
- [Happy Apple Med. Servs., PC v Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. (2021 NY Slip Op 50336(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/happy-apple-med-servs-pc-v-liberty-mut-ins-co-2021-ny-slip-op50336u/) — Civil Court of the City of New York, Richmond County, 2021-04-13 — WC defense not shown [central]: Denied dismissal because the Board's finding that the accident was work-related did not divest the court of jurisdiction over a no-fault claim; workers' compensation is at most a policy defense, and the insurer offered no policy or denial.
- [RX Warehouse Pharmarcy Inc. v Erie Ins. Exch. (2019 NY Slip Op 50905(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/rx-warehouse-pharmarcy-inc-v-erie-ins-exch-2019-ny-slip-op50905u/) — Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County, 2019-03-22 — No coverage, not priority [central]: Rejected the claim that the court lacked jurisdiction over an insurer-priority dispute because nothing showed the assignor, who occupied his own vehicle, was an eligible injured person under the defendant's policy, so the 65-4.11 (a) (6) priority analysis was not triggered.
- [Chiropractic Testing Servs. of N.Y., P.C. v American Tr. Ins. Co. (2018 NY Slip Op 28052)](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/chiropractic-testing-servs-of-n-y-p-c-v-american-tr-ins-co-2018-ny-slip-op-28052/) — Civil Court of the City of New York, Richmond County, 2018-02-07 — Referred to WC Board [central]: Held the cab company's ownership of the vehicle and status as named insured showed potential merit that the livery driver was an employee, so the action was stayed pending a Board determination, with conditional dismissal if no application was filed within 90 days.
- [Clear Water Psychological Servs. PC v American Tr. Ins. Co. (2016 NY Slip Op 26420)](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/clear-water-psychological-servs-pc-v-american-tr-ins-co-2016-ny-slip-op-26420/) — Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County, 2016-12-08 — Referred to WC Board [central]: Held that, although the uncertified police report was inadmissible, the undisputed taxi plate raised a question of the assignor's employment status for the Board, and stayed the action 90 days pending a prompt Board application.
- [Administrative Assets v Zurich Am. Ins. Co. (2009 NY Slip Op 52261(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/administrative-assets-v-zurich-am-ins-co-2009-ny-slip-op-52261u/) — Civil Court of the City of New York, Richmond County, 2009-10-01 — WC defense not shown [central]: Held the employer's report attached to a claims specialist's conclusory affidavit was inadmissible hearsay, so the insurer failed to show potential merit to its claim that the assignor was employed and that the issue must go to the Board.
- [Corona Comprehensive Med. Care, P.C. v Global Liberty Ins. Co. of N.Y. (2009 NY Slip Op 51432(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/corona-comprehensive-med-care-p-c-v-global-liberty-ins-co-of-n-y-2009-nyslip-op-51432u/) — Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County, 2009-07-06 — WC defense precluded [central]: Held the Black Car Fund workers' compensation defense was a statutory offset subject to preclusion, not a coverage defense, and the insurer failed to prove timely mailing of a denial preserving it, so summary judgment was denied.
- [Lenox Hill Radiology & MIA, P.C. v Global Liberty Ins. Co. of N.Y. (2009 NY Slip Op 51620(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/lenox-hill-radiology-mia-p-c-v-global-liberty-ins-co-of-n-y-2009-ny-slipop-51620u/) — Civil Court of the City of New York, Richmond County, 2009-07-06 — WC defense precluded [central]: Held the workers' compensation defense was not a lack-of-coverage defense but subject to the 30-day preclusion rule, so the insurer, whose timely denial cited only medical necessity, was precluded from raising it.
- [Jing Huo Lac v American Tr. Ins. Co. (2008 NY Slip Op 51177(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/jing-huo-lac-v-american-tr-ins-co-2008-ny-slip-op-51177u/) — Civil Court of the City of New York, Richmond County, 2008-06-12 — WC defense not shown [central]: Denied the insurer's motion to dismiss because a police accident report showing a TLC-plated car, against an NF-3 denying work-related injury, did not show potential merit to the claim the assignor was employed, so no Board referral.
- [Westchester Med. Ctr. v American Tr. Ins. Co. (2008 NY Slip Op 50546(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/westchester-med-ctr-v-american-tr-ins-co-2008-ny-slip-op-50546u/) — Supreme Court, Nassau County, 2008-01-21 — WC defense precluded [also decides]: Held the insurer's denial on the ground that the claimant was eligible for workers' compensation came too late, applying the rule that a statutory exclusion defense is precluded without a denial within 30 days.
- [Ave T MPC, Corp. v Progressive Ins. Co. (2007 NY Slip Op 51760(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/ave-t-mpc-corp-v-progressive-ins-co-2007-ny-slip-op-51760u/) — Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County, 2007-09-05 — First insurer must pay [central]: Held that the insurer's refusal to pay on the ground that the rental company's insurer was primary raised a priority-of-payment dispute between insurers that had to go to mandatory arbitration, so the court lacked jurisdiction and dismissed.
- [JSI Expert Servs. Inc. v Firemans Fund Ins. Co. (2005 NY Slip Op 52058(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/jsi-expert-servs-inc-v-firemans-fund-ins-co-2005-ny-slip-op-52058u/) — Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County, 2005-12-16 — Referred to WC Board [central]: Upheld an award denying the claim without prejudice until the Workers' Compensation Board decided employment, because the insurer offered minimal proof of employment and the defense was not precluded by its untimely denial.