Decided on December 18, 2020

SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 2d, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS

Law Office of David O’Connor, LLC (David O’Connor of counsel), for appellant. Rivkin Radler, LLP (Stuart M. Bodoff and Cheryl F. Korman of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Maurice E. Muir, J.), entered April 20, 2018. The order, insofar as appealed from and as limited by the brief, granted the branch of defendant’s motion seeking to toll the accrual of no-fault statutory interest based upon plaintiff’s delay in the prosecution of the action to the extent of tolling that interest from January 1, 2005 to July 12, 2017.

ORDERED that the order, insofar as appealed from, is affirmed, with $25 costs.

Plaintiff commenced this action in 2002 to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits for services allegedly rendered in 2001. The record demonstrates that issue was joined in July 2002, that a motion by plaintiff for summary judgment was denied in December of 2004, and that plaintiff served and filed a notice of trial in or about July 2017. Plaintiff appeals, as limited by the brief, from so much of an order entered April 20, 2018 as granted the branch of defendant’s motion seeking to toll the accrual of no-fault statutory interest to the extent of tolling that interest from January 1, 2005 to July 12, 2017.

Where a provider does not commence a no-fault action within 30 days of receipt of the insurer’s denial of claim form, the Insurance Department Regulations provide that statutory interest (see Insurance Law § 5106 [a]) does not begin to accumulate until an action is commenced (11 NYCRR 65-3.9 [c]). If an action has been commenced, statutory interest accumulates “unless the applicant unreasonably delays the . . . court proceeding” (former 11 NYCRR 65.15 [h] [now 11 NYCRR 65-3.9 (d)]). In this case, since plaintiff moved for [*2]summary judgment, but took no meaningful action to prosecute the case after that motion was denied until it filed a notice of trial on July 12, 2017, the Civil Court properly tolled the no-fault interest until that date. Plaintiff’s assertion on appeal, that defendant failed to serve responses to plaintiff’s discovery demands, even if true, is not a basis to find that it was defendant who had “unreasonably delay[ed]” the action (see Vitality Chiropractic, P.C. v Countrywide Ins., 59 Misc 3d 150[A], 2018 NY Slip Op 50838[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2018]; Kew Gardens Med & Rehab, P.C. v Country-Wide Ins. Co., 52 Misc 3d 143[A], 2016 NY Slip Op 51240[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2016]).

Accordingly, the order, insofar as appealed from, is affirmed.

ALIOTTA, P.J., WESTON and ELLIOT, JJ., concur.

Law Office of Goldstein, Flecker & Hopkins (Lawrence J. Chanice of counsel), for appellant. Law Office of Melissa Betancourt, P.C. (Melissa Betancourt of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Odessa Kennedy, J.), entered April 3, 2019. The order, insofar as appealed from, denied defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3216

ORDERED that the order, insofar as appealed from, is reversed, with $30 costs, and defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3216 is granted.

In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, defendant moved in March 2018 to dismiss the complaint on the ground that defendant had not been served with a notice of trial within 90 days of defendant’s service upon plaintiff’s attorney’s office manager, on September 11, 2017, of a 90-day demand (see CPLR 3216). By order entered April 3, 2019, the Civil Court (Odessa Kennedy, J.), among other things, denied defendant’s motion, finding that defendant had not served the 90-day demand in compliance with CPLR 3216 (b) (3).

The Civil Court should not have denied defendant’s motion on the ground that the 90-day notice was not served in compliance with the statute. Plaintiff did not make that argument in opposition to defendant’s motion, did not dispute receipt of the 90-day demand and did not make the required showing of prejudice (see Balancio v American Opt. Corp., 66 NY2d 750 [1985]; Michaels v Sunrise Bldg. & Remodeling, Inc., 65 AD3d 1021 [2009]).

Upon receipt of a 90-day demand, a plaintiff must either comply with the demand by [*2]filing a notice of trial within 90 days thereafter (see CPLR 3216 [b] [3]; [c]) or move before the default date either to vacate the demand or to extend the 90-day period pursuant to CPLR 2004 (see Felix v County of Nassau, 52 AD3d 653 [2008]; Katina, Inc. v Town of Hempstead, 13 AD3d 343 [2004]; A.M. Med., P.C. v State Farm Mut. Ins. Co., 22 Misc 3d 43 [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2008]). Here, since plaintiff did not file a notice of trial within 90 days after its receipt of the 90-day demand and had not moved prior thereto to vacate the demand or to extend the 90-day period, it was required, in opposition to defendant’s motion to dismiss, to establish both a justifiable excuse for its delay and the existence of a meritorious cause of action (see CPLR 3216 [e]; Baczkowski v Collins Constr. Co., 89 NY2d 499 [1997]; Lee v Rad, 132 AD3d 643 [2015]; Felix, 52 AD3d 653; A.M. Med., P.C., 22 Misc 3d 43).

While a court, in its discretion, may accept a claim of law office failure as an excuse (see CPLR 2005), here, the affidavit submitted by plaintiff’s attorney’s office manager in opposition to defendant’s motion did not provide a detailed and credible explanation of the law office failure that had caused the delay (see Silver Acupuncture, P.C. v GEICO Indem. Co., 69 Misc 3d 128[A], 2020 NY Slip Op 51134[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2020]; Faith Acupuncture, P.C. v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 63 Misc 3d 156[A], 2019 NY Slip Op 50829[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2019]; Premier Surgical Servs., P.C. v Allstate Ins. Co., 58 Misc 3d 160[A], 2018 NY Slip Op 50273[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2018]). The office manager’s affidavit set forth her firm’s policy to the effect that, upon receipt of a 90-day demand, the demand is given to a paralegal to enter such receipt in the firm’s computer system. The office manager further stated that, in the instant case, there is no such entry in the computer system. However, there was no affidavit submitted by the paralegal and no explanation as to why there was none forthcoming. In any event, the office manager failed to explain what happened to the 90-day demand or why plaintiff did not respond to it. Consequently, plaintiff’s claim of law office failure did not rise to the level of a justifiable excuse. In view of the foregoing, it is unnecessary to consider whether plaintiff demonstrated the existence of a meritorious cause of action (see generally Levi v Levi, 46 AD3d 519 [2007]; Premier Surgical Servs., P.C., 58 Misc 3d 160[A], 2018 NY Slip Op 50273[U]).

Accordingly, the order, insofar as appealed from, is reversed, and defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3216 is granted.

ALIOTTA, P.J., WESTON and TOUSSAINT, JJ., concur.

Decision Date: December 11, 2020

Freiberg, Peck & Kang, LLP (Yilo J. Kang of counsel), for appellant. Baker Sanders, LLC, for respondent (no brief filed).

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Richmond County (Lisa Grey, J.), entered September 20, 2018. The order denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with $25 costs.

In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits for injuries the assignor sustained in a motor vehicle accident in New York on June 5, 2015, defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the South Carolina automobile insurance policy was fraudulently procured by the assignor, who is also the insured, based on alleged misrepresentations which she had made on her application for insurance. By order entered September 20, 2018, the Civil Court, applying the substantive law of South Carolina (see Portfolio Recovery Assoc., LLC v King, 14 NY3d 410 [2010]), denied defendant’s motion. We note that no issue is raised on appeal regarding the applicability of South Carolina law.

South Carolina allows an insurance company to rescind an automobile insurance policy ab initio under certain circumstances (see Strickland v Prudential Ins. Co., 278 SC 82, 86-87, 292 SE2d 301, 304 [1982]). In order for an insurance company to be entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaint based on a rescission, ab initio, of the policy issued in a sister state, the insurance company “has the burden of establishing that it complied with the law of the [*2]sister state which permits retroactive rescission” (Delta Diagnostic Radiology, P.C. v Infinity Group, 49 Misc 3d 42, 44 [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2015]; see Parisien v Omni Indem. Co., 67 Misc 3d 141[A], 2020 NY Slip Op 50725[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2020]; Craigg v Infinity Select Ins. Co., 38 Misc 3d 56 [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2013]; W.H.O. Acupuncture, P.C. v Infinity Prop. & Cas. Co., 36 Misc 3d 4 [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2012]). Upon a review of the record, we find that the papers defendant submitted in support of its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint failed to establish its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, as it did not show that defendant had complied with the requirements of South Carolina Code Annotated § 38-75-730 (b).

Accordingly, the order is affirmed.

ALIOTTA, P.J., WESTON and TOUSSAINT, JJ., concur.

Glinkenhouse Floumanhaft & Queen, by Glinkenhouse Queen (Alan Queen and Stephen J. Green of counsel), for appellant. Jaffe & Velasquez, LLP (Jean H. Kang of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (David M. Hawkins, J.), entered April 3, 2018. The order denied plaintiff’s motion to recalculate, from a simple rate to a compound rate, an award of statutory no-fault interest in a judgment of that court entered January 12, 2017 and, sua sponte, vacated the January 12, 2017 judgment.

ORDERED that so much of the appeal as is from the portion of the order as sua sponte vacated the January 12, 2017 judgment is dismissed; and it is further,

ORDERED that so much of the appeal as is from the portion of the order as denied plaintiff’s motion to recalculate, from a simple rate to a compound rate, an award of statutory no-fault interest in a judgment of that court entered January 12, 2017 is dismissed as moot.

This action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits for claims submitted to defendant in 1999, was settled in 2009. Defendant did not pay the settlement amount, and a judgment was subsequently entered on January 12, 2017 (see CPLR 5003-a) awarding statutory no-fault interest at a simple rate (see 11 NYCRR 65-3.9 [a], effective April 5, 2002). Plaintiff moved, pursuant to CPLR 5019 (a), to have the interest recalculated at a compound rate (see former 11 NYCRR 65.15 [h] [1]). By order entered April 3, 2018, the Civil Court denied plaintiff’s motion and, sua sponte, vacated the January 12, 2017 judgment, finding that, because of plaintiff’s “delay” in entering judgment, plaintiff was not entitled to any [*2]prejudgment statutory no-fault interest (but see Seaside Rehabilitation v Allstate Ins. Co., 63 Misc 3d 162[A], 2019 NY Slip Op 50918[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2019]).

The portion of the order which vacated the January 12, 2017 judgment did not address a demand for relief made on notice and was, therefore, sua sponte. Thus, that portion of the order is not appealable as of right (see CCA 1702 [a] [2]; Sholes v Meagher, 100 NY2d 333 [2003]; Active Care Med. Supply Corp. v Delos Ins. Co., 55 Misc 3d 144[A], 2017 NY Slip Op 50650[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2017]), and we decline to grant leave to appeal. Plaintiff “could properly have moved to vacate the order and appealed as of right” to this court in the event that the motion was denied (Sholes, 100 NY2d at 335; see Active Care Med. Supply Corp., 55 Misc 3d 144[A], 2017 NY Slip Op 50650[U]; see also CCA 1702 [a] [3]), but the record before us does not indicate that plaintiff has made such a motion.

Since the January 12, 2017 judgment has been vacated, plaintiff’s motion to recalculate, from a simple rate to a compound rate, an award of statutory no-fault interest in that judgment is moot. We note, however, that claims submitted before April 5, 2002 are governed by the former regulations providing for compound interest (see Belt Parkway Imaging, P.C. v State Wide Ins. Co., 30 Misc 3d 127[A], 2010 NY Slip Op 52229[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2010]).

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

WESTON, J.P., ALIOTTA and SIEGAL, JJ., concur.

[*1]

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Department, 2d, 11th and 13th Judicial Districts, November 27, 2020

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

Glinkenhouse, Floumanhaft & Queen, by Glinkenhouse Queen (Alan Queen and Stephen J. Green of counsel), for appellant.

Jaffe & Velazquez, LLP (Jean H. Kang of counsel) for respondent.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed.

This action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits was settled by a two-attorney stipulation dated June 16, 2003. Defendant did not pay the settlement amount, and a judgment was entered on January 12, 2017, pursuant to CPLR 5003-a. Plaintiff subsequently moved, pursuant to CPLR 5019 (a), in effect, to correct the January 12, 2017 judgment by recalculating the interest. By order entered February 20, 2018, the Civil Court granted the motion, but, sua sponte, stayed the accrual of statutory no-fault interest from June 16, 2003, through February 22, 2017. Plaintiff appeals from so much of the order as, sua sponte, stayed the accrual of interest.

The portion of the order which tolled the accrual of interest did not address a demand for relief made on notice and was, therefore, sua sponte. Thus, that portion of the order is not appealable as of right (see CCA 1702 [a] [2]; Sholes v Meagher, 100 NY2d 333 [2003]; Active Care Med. Supply Corp. v Delos Ins. Co., 55 Misc 3d 144[A], 2017 NY Slip Op 50650[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2017]), and we decline to grant leave to appeal. Plaintiff “could properly have moved to vacate the order and appealed as of right” to this court in the event that the motion was denied (Sholes, 100 NY2d at 335; see Active Care Med. Supply Corp., 55 Misc 3d 144[A], 2017 NY Slip Op 50650[U]; see also CCA 1702 [a] [3]), but plaintiff failed to make such a motion.

With respect to the position of the dissenting justice, we submit that deeming the appeal [*2]as something other than an improper appeal without permission should not be done{**71 Misc 3d at 13} routinely, particularly as there have been numerous such appeals made without permission in cases similar to this.

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

Weston, J. (dissenting and voting to, on the court’s own motion, treat the notice of appeal as an application for leave to appeal and grant leave, and, thereupon, to reverse the order, insofar as appealed from, and to vacate so much of the order as stayed the accrual of statutory no-fault interest, in the following memorandum). This is yet another case in which this court has had to address the Civil Court’s sua sponte stay of the accrual of statutory no-fault interest. While it may be expedient to dismiss the appeal, in my opinion, plaintiff’s notice of appeal should be treated as a motion for leave to appeal and such leave granted. Alternatively, plaintiff’s motion may be treated as a motion to resettle the judgment, and the court’s order, which materially changed the prior judgment, is appealable (see Weksler v Weksler, 81 AD3d 401 [2011]; Gormel v Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 151 AD2d 1048 [1989]). Upon granting leave, I would reverse so much of the order as stayed the accrual of no-fault statutory interest.

This action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits was settled in June 2003. Defendant did not pay the settlement amount, and a judgment was subsequently entered on January 12, 2017, pursuant to CPLR 5003-a. Plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Civil Court entered February 20, 2018, as sua sponte stayed the accrual of no-fault statutory interest from June 16, 2003, through February 22, 2017.

The Civil Court erred in staying interest from the date of the settlement of the action to the date when the motion was made. Once the case settled, defendant was obligated to pay the agreed-upon amount to plaintiff (see CPLR 5003-a) and “plaintiff, as the prevailing party, was not required to make a demand for the money” (B.Z. Chiropractic, P.C. v Allstate Ins. Co., 56 Misc 3d 139[A], 2017 NY Slip Op 51091[U], *2 [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2017]; see CPLR 5003-a [e]). Defendant did not demonstrate that plaintiff had prevented defendant in any way from paying the settlement amount (see ERHAL Holding Corp. v Rusin, 252 AD2d 473, 474 [1998]; Juracka v Ferrara, 120 AD2d 822 [1986]; Craniofacial Pain Mgt. v Allstate Ins. Co., 61 Misc 3d 155[A], 2018 NY Slip Op 51825[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2018]; B.Z. Chiropractic, P.C., 56 Misc 3d 139[A], 2017 {**71 Misc 3d at 14}NY Slip Op 51091[U]). Therefore, the Civil Court erred in tolling the accrual of interest (see Craniofacial Pain Mgt., 61 Misc 3d 155[A], 2018 NY Slip Op 51825[U]; B.Z. Chiropractic, P.C., 56 Misc 3d 139[A], 2017 NY Slip Op 51091[U]).

Accordingly, the order, insofar as appealed from, should be reversed, and so much of the order as stayed the accrual of statutory no-fault interest from June 16, 2003, through February 22, 2017, should be vacated.

Aliotta and Siegal, JJ., concur; Weston, J.P., dissents in a separate memorandum.

Decided on November 20, 2020

SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 2d, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS

Glinkenhouse, Floumanhaft & Queen (Alan Queen of counsel), for appellant. Jaffe & Velazquez, LLP (Jean H. Kang of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (David M. Hawkins, J.), entered August 1, 2018. The order denied plaintiff’s motion to recalculate, from a simple rate to a compound rate, an award of statutory no-fault interest in a judgment of that court entered April 17, 2017 and, sua sponte, vacated the April 17, 2017 judgment.

ORDERED that so much of the appeal as is from the portion of the order as sua sponte vacated the April 17, 2017 judgment is dismissed; and it is further,

ORDERED that so much of the appeal as is from the portion of the order as denied plaintiff’s motion to recalculate, from a simple rate to a compound rate, an award of statutory no-fault interest in a judgment of that court entered April 17, 2017 is dismissed as moot.

This action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits for a claim for services rendered in 1999 was settled in 2008. Defendant did not pay the settlement amount, and a judgment was entered on April 17, 2017 (see CPLR 5003-a) awarding statutory no-fault interest at a simple rate (see 11 NYCRR 65-3.9 [a], effective April 5, 2002). Plaintiff moved, pursuant to CPLR 5019 (a), to have the interest recalculated at a compound rate (see former 11 NYCRR 65.15 [h] [1]). By order entered August 1, 2018, the Civil Court denied plaintiff’s motion and, sua sponte, vacated the April 17, 2017 judgment, finding that, because of plaintiff’s “delay” in entering judgment, plaintiff was not entitled to any prejudgment statutory no-fault interest (but see Seaside Rehabilitation v Allstate Ins. Co., 63 Misc 3d 162[A], 2019 NY Slip Op 50918[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2019]).

The portion of the order which vacated the April 17, 2017 judgment did not address a demand for relief made on notice and was, therefore, sua sponte. Thus, that portion of the order is not appealable as of right (see CCA 1702 [a] [2]; Sholes v Meagher, 100 NY2d 333 [2003]; [*2]Active Care Med. Supply Corp. v Delos Ins. Co., 55 Misc 3d 144[A], 2017 NY Slip Op 50650[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2017]), and we decline to grant leave to appeal. Plaintiff “could properly have moved to vacate the order and appealed as of right” to this court in the event that the motion was denied (Sholes, 100 NY2d at 335; see Active Care Med. Supply Corp., 55 Misc 3d 144[A], 2017 NY Slip Op 50650[U]; see also CCA 1702 [a] [3]), but the record before us does not indicate that plaintiff has made such a motion.

Since the April 17, 2017 judgment has been vacated, plaintiff’s motion to recalculate, from a simple rate to a compound rate, an award of statutory no-fault interest in that judgment is moot. We note, however, that claims submitted before April 5, 2002 are governed by the former regulations providing for compound interest (see Belt Parkway Imaging, P.C. v State Wide Ins. Co., 30 Misc 3d 127[A], 2010 NY Slip Op 52229[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2010]).

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

ALIOTTA, P.J., ELLIOT and TOUSSAINT, JJ., concur.

Decided on November 13, 2020

SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 2d, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS

Decided on November 13, 2020

SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 2d, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS