Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Carolyn E. Wade, J.), entered December 6, 2013. The order, insofar as appealed from, upon reargument, adhered to a prior determination in an order of the same court dated June 13, 2013 granting defendant’s motion to, in effect, vacate its default in opposing a prior motion by plaintiff, and granted defendant’s cross motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3216 (e).

ORDERED that the order entered December 6, 2013, insofar as appealed from, is affirmed, without costs.

In this action to recover first-party no-fault benefits, by order dated June 13, 2013, the Civil Court granted a motion by defendant to, in effect, vacate its default in opposing a prior motion by plaintiff which had sought to place the action on the trial calendar. Plaintiff thereafter moved for leave to reargue her opposition to defendant’s motion, and defendant cross-moved to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3216 (e). By order entered December 6, 2013, the Civil Court, upon granting reargument, adhered to its prior decision, and granted defendant’s cross motion.

This action, which was brought in 1998, was the subject of a prior appeal (Small v Metropolitan Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 35 Misc 3d 134[A], 2012 NY Slip Op 50760[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2012]), in which this court found that the action had been marked off in 1999 and that when plaintiff moved to restore the case in 2010, in response to a 90-day notice served by defendant (see CPLR 3216), she was required to demonstrate a meritorious cause of action and a reasonable excuse for the delay in moving to restore. Contrary to plaintiff’s arguments on this appeal, that decision is law of the case (see 10A Carmody-Wait 2d § 70:537), and, as defendant and the Civil Court noted, plaintiff cannot evade the requirements set forth by this court by simply bringing the same motion under another name. As plaintiff has yet to demonstrate a meritorious cause of action or reasonable excuse for her multi-year delay, and as plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that the Civil Court overlooked or misapprehended any matter of fact or law (see CPLR 2221 [d] [2]), the Civil Court properly adhered to its prior determination.

We also find that the Civil Court properly granted defendant’s cross motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3216 (e) (see Picot v City of New York, 50 AD3d 757 [2008]; Ovchinnikov v Joyce Owners Corp., 43 AD3d 1124 [2007]; Missos v General Motors Corp., 30 [*2]AD3d 303 [2006]).

Accordingly, the order entered December 6, 2013, insofar as appealed from, is affirmed.

Pesce, P.J., Weston and Aliotta, JJ., concur.

[*1]

Freiberg, Peck & Kang, LLP, Armonk, NY (Yilo J. Kang of counsel), for appellant.

Amos Weinberg, Great Neck, NY, for respondents.

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 to stay arbitration of claims for no-fault benefits, the petitioner appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Schmidt, J.), dated April 6, 2015, which denied the petition.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for a hearing on the issue of whether the petitioner controls, is controlled by, or is under common control by or with an insurer authorized to transact business in New York and, thereafter, for a new determination of the petition, and the arbitration is stayed pending a new determination of the petition.

The petitioner, American Independent Insurance Co. (hereinafter AIIC), is a Pennsylvania corporation not licensed to do business in the State of New York. In 2011, AIIC commenced a proceeding in the Supreme Court, Queens County, to permanently stay arbitration of three claims for no-fault benefits on the ground that it was not subject to personal jurisdiction in New York. The Supreme Court, Queens County, inter alia, granted the petition in that proceeding. On appeal, this Court, inter alia, modified the order and denied the petition (see American Ind. Ins. Co. v Art of Healing Medicine, P.C., 104 AD3d 761 [2013]). In July 2014, AIIC commenced this proceeding in the Supreme Court, Kings County, to permanently stay arbitration of the same claims for no-fault benefits that were the subject of the first proceeding, as well as to permanently stay arbitration of two additional claims. AIIC alleged, inter alia, that arbitration should be stayed because the subject policies did not contain an agreement to arbitrate. The Supreme Court denied the petition.

The Supreme Court determined that AIIC was estopped from raising its current arguments because it should have raised them in the first proceeding. We disagree. In the first proceeding, AIIC argued only that it was not subject to personal jurisdiction in New York. Had AIIC argued the merits, it would have indicated an intention to submit to the court’s jurisdiction (see Taveras v City of New York, 108 AD3d 614, 617 [2013]; Rubino v City of New York, 145 AD2d 285, 288 [1989]). Furthermore, this proceeding is not barred by the doctrines of res judicata and/or collateral estoppel (see Matter of AutoOne Ins. Co. v Valentine, 72 AD3d 953 [2010]).

[*2] Article 51 of the Insurance Law is known as the Comprehensive Motor Vehicle Insurance Reparations Act and is commonly referred to as the No-Fault Law (see Kingsbrook Jewish Med. Ctr. v Allstate Ins. Co., 61 AD3d 13, 17 [2009]). The purpose of this statute is to “ ’assure claimants of expeditious compensation for their injuries through prompt payment of first-party benefits without regard to fault and without expense to them’ ” (New York Hosp. Med. Ctr. of Queens v Motor Veh. Acc. Indem. Corp., 12 AD3d 429, 430 [2004], quoting Dermatossian v New York City Tr. Auth., 67 NY2d 219, 225 [1986]).

Section 5107 of article 51, entitled “Coverage for non-resident motorists,” provides, in pertinent part, that “(a) Every insurer authorized to transact or transacting business in this state, or controlling or controlled by or under common control by or with such an insurer, which sells a policy providing motor vehicle liability insurance coverage or any similar coverage in any state or Canadian province, shall include in each such policy coverage to satisfy the financial security requirements of article six or eight of the vehicle and traffic law and to provide for the payment of first party benefits pursuant to subsection (a) of section five thousand one hundred three of this article when a motor vehicle covered by such policy is used or operated in this state” (emphasis added).

The enabling regulation to Insurance Law § 5107 provides, in relevant part, that “(b) The automobile liability insurance policies which are sold in any other state or Canadian province by an unauthorized insurer which is controlled by, or controlling, or under common control of, an authorized insurer shall be deemed to satisfy the financial security requirements of article 6 or 8 of the New York Vehicle and Traffic Law, and shall be deemed to provide for the payment of first-party benefits pursuant to section 5103 of the New York Insurance Law when the insured motor vehicle is used or operated in this State” (11 NYCRR 65-1.8 [b] [emphasis added]).

Section 5106 of the Insurance Law, entitled “Fair claims settlement,” provides, in pertinent part, that “(b) Every insurer shall provide a claimant with the option of submitting any dispute involving the insurer’s liability to pay first party benefits, or additional first party benefits, the amount thereof or any other matter which may arise pursuant to subsection (a) of this section to arbitration pursuant to simplified procedures to be promulgated or approved by the superintendent” (emphasis added).

Contrary to AIIC’s contention, the fact that the subject policies do not contain any agreement to arbitrate disputes involving the payment of first-party benefits does not preclude the respondents from exercising their option to arbitrate the underlying dispute in this proceeding. Although this Court has held, in the context of claims for uninsured or supplemental underinsured motorist benefits, that “ '[a] party will not be compelled to arbitrate absent evidence affirmatively establishing that the parties expressly agreed to arbitrate their disputes’ ” (Matter of Progressive Specialty Ins. Co. v Louis, 122 AD3d 637, 638 [2014], quoting Matter of State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v Juma, 44 AD3d 963, 963 [2007]; see Matter of State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v Torcivia, 277 AD2d 321 [2000]), those cases do not apply to claims for the payment of first-party benefits, ostensibly because Insurance Law § 5106 (b) mandates every insurer to provide a claimant with the option to arbitrate disputes concerning first-party benefits. Indeed, the obligation to arbitrate is not found in the policies but is imposed upon the policies by the No-Fault Law (see Ohio Cas. Group v Avellini, 54 AD2d 632 [1976], affd 43 NY2d 701 [1977]).

Here, it is undisputed that the respondents exercised their option to arbitrate the dispute over the payment of first-party benefits. It is further undisputed that AIIC is not licensed or authorized to transact business in this State. Nonetheless, AIIC’s policies may be deemed to satisfy New York’s financial security requirements and to provide for the payment of first-party benefits, which necessarily includes affording claimants the option to arbitrate disputes involving first-party benefits (see Insurance Law § 5106 [b]), if it is determined that AIIC controls, is controlled by or under common control by, or is with an authorized insurer (see Insurance Law § 5107 [a]). Although the respondents allege that AIIC falls within that criteria, there is insufficient evidence in the record to make such a determination. Therefore, the matter must be remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for a hearing on the issue of whether AIIC controls, is controlled by, or is under common [*3]control by or with an authorized insurer and, thereafter, for a new determination of the petition. Dillon, J.P., Dickerson, Austin and Duffy, JJ., concur.

Decided on March 23, 2016

SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Jodi Orlow, J.), entered December 17, 2013. The order denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and granted defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

ORDERED that the order is modified by providing that defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is denied; as so modified, the order is affirmed, without costs.

In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, plaintiff appeals from an order which denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and granted defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Plaintiff’s moving papers failed to establish either that defendant had failed to deny the claim within the requisite 30-day period or that defendant had issued a timely denial of claim that was conclusory, vague or without merit as a matter of law (see Insurance Law § 5106 [a]; Westchester Med. Ctr. v Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 78 AD3d 1168 [2010]; Ave T MPC Corp. v Auto One Ins. Co., 32 Misc 3d 128[A], 2011 NY Slip Op 51292[U] [App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2011]). Consequently, contrary to plaintiff’s contention, plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case, and the burden never shifted to defendant.

Defendant, in support of its cross motion, failed to demonstrate that it is not precluded from asserting the defense of fraudulent procurement of the policy, as defendant failed to establish that it had timely denied plaintiff’s claim (see Westchester Med. Ctr. v GMAC Ins. Co. Online, Inc., 80 AD3d 603 [2011]; Gutierrez v United Servs. Auto. Assn., 47 Misc 3d 152[A], 2015 NY Slip Op 50797[U] [App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2015]). Thus, defendant is not entitled to summary judgment on that ground. To the extent defendant also sought summary judgment on the ground of lack of coverage, a defense which is not subject to preclusion (see Central Gen. Hosp. v Chubb Group of Ins. Cos., 90 NY2d 195, 199 [1997]), defendant’s proffered evidence was insufficient to establish, as a matter of law, that the assignor’s alleged injuries did not arise from an insured incident so as to warrant the dismissal of the complaint (see Central Gen. Hosp., 90 NY2d at 199; Infinity Health Prods., Ltd. v American Tr. Ins. Co., 30 Misc 3d 137[A], 2011 NY Slip Op 50195[U] [App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2011]).

Accordingly, the order is modified by providing that defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is denied.

Pesce, P.J., Weston and Aliotta, JJ., concur.

Decided on March 23, 2016

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

Decided on March 23, 2016

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

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Carol Ruth Feinman, J.), entered July 30, 2014. The order denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and granted plaintiff’s cross motion for summary judgment.

ORDERED that the order is reversed, with $30 costs, defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted and plaintiff’s cross motion for summary judgment is denied.

In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the automobile insurance policy in question had been issued in Florida, and that, based upon a conflict-of-law analysis, Florida law applied, pursuant to which there was a lack of coverage due to the valid rescission of the automobile insurance policy. Plaintiff cross-moved for summary judgment. In an order entered July 30, 2014, the Civil Court denied defendant’s motion and granted plaintiff’s cross motion, based upon defendant’s failure to timely deny plaintiff’s claim.

On appeal, defendant contends that it made a prima facie showing of its defense of rescission of the underlying insurance policy in accordance with Florida law and that its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint should have been granted.

The vehicle involved in the accident at issue, which occurred in New York, was being driven by plaintiff’s assignor, who was the policy holder. At the time of the accident, the vehicle was insured by defendant under a Florida automobile insurance policy. After defendant’s investigation into the accident revealed that, at the time the insured applied for motor vehicle insurance, she did not reside at the Florida address listed on the insurance application and that the vehicle was not garaged at that Florida address, defendant rescinded the policy, ab initio, pursuant to Florida Statutes Annotated, title 37, § 627.409, which permits the retroactive cancellation of an insurance contract if there has been a material misrepresentation in an application for insurance.

In order to show that it properly voided a motor vehicle insurance policy ab initio, in accordance with Florida law, an insurer must demonstrate that it gave notice of the rescission to the insured and that it returned or tendered all premiums paid within a reasonable time after the discovery of the grounds for avoiding the policy (see Leonardo v State Farm Fire and Cas. Co., 675 So 2d 176, 179 [Fla Dist Ct App, 4th Dist 1996]; see also United Auto. Ins. Co. v Salgado, 22 So 3d 594, 600-601 [Fla Dist Ct App, 3d Dist 2009]). As defendant demonstrated, through the supporting affidavit of its litigation specialist and accompanying documents, that it had complied with the foregoing requirements, defendant’s prima facie entitlement to summary judgment was established (see 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]). In opposition to defendant’s prima facie showing, plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to the validity of the retroactive [*2]rescission of the policy in accordance with Florida law (see Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557 [1980]). Consequently, it was error for the Civil Court to deny defendant’s motion and to grant plaintiff’s cross motion.

Accordingly, the order is reversed, defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted and plaintiff’s cross motion for summary judgment is denied.

Weston, J.P., Pesce and Aliotta, JJ., concur.

Appeal from a judgment of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (William A. Viscovich, J.), entered April 30, 2014. The judgment, entered upon a decision of the same court dated December 31, 2012, after a nonjury trial, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $2,160.

ORDERED that, on the court’s own motion, the notice of appeal from the decision dated December 31, 2012 is deemed a premature notice of appeal from the judgment entered April 30, 2014 (see CPLR 5520 [c]); and it is further,

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

At a nonjury trial of this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits for acupuncture services rendered to its assignor, the sole issue was the medical necessity of acupuncture treatments rendered by plaintiff to its assignor during the spring of 2008. Defendant’s expert medical witness, Dr. Chiu, who had performed an independent medical examination (IME) of plaintiff’s assignor on July 17, 2007, testified that, at the time of the IME, the assignor’s injuries had resolved and that there was no further need for acupuncture treatment. Dr. Friedman, who had commenced treatment of the assignor in June 2007, testified that he was of the opinion that the assignor’s injuries had not resolved at the time of the IME and that further acupuncture treatment was necessary. He had examined and treated the assignor after the IME had been conducted and had concluded that the assignor’s condition was sometimes better and sometimes worse, but that the assignor still often suffered from pain arising from his injuries. It was his opinion that the assignor’s injuries were caused by the accident, but that the injuries were exacerbated by the nature of his job as a parking valet, which “impeded . . . the progress of the treatment.” In a decision after trial, from which defendant appeals, the Civil Court concluded that the acupuncture services in question were medically necessary. A judgment in favor of plaintiff was subsequently entered, from which we deem the appeal to have been taken (see CPLR 5520 [c]).

It is undisputed that defendant denied plaintiff’s claims solely on the basis of Dr. Chui’s IME, which concluded that the services rendered were not medically necessary, and not on the basis of the assignor’s possible eligibility for workers’ compensation benefits, which is a defense subject to preclusion (see Westchester Med. Ctr. v Lincoln Gen. Ins. Co., 60 AD3d 1045, 1046 [2009]). Since defendant did not deny plaintiff’s claims based upon the assignor’s possible eligibility for workers’ compensation benefits, defendant is precluded from raising that defense.

With respect to defendant’s contention that it demonstrated at trial that the acupuncture services in question lacked medical necessity, we find that, after defendant made its showing that the services in question were not medically necessary, plaintiff met its burden of demonstrating, by a preponderance of the credible evidence, that the services at issue were, in fact, medically necessary (see Park Slope Med. & Surgical Supply, Inc. v Travelers Ins. Co., 37 Misc 3d 19, 22 [*2][App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2012]). There is, therefore, no basis to disturb the Civil Court’s determination in favor of plaintiff.

Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

Weston, J.P., Pesce and Aliotta, JJ., concur.

Decided on March 18, 2016

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

Decided on March 17, 2016

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