[*1] (July 29, 2020)

Bruno, Gerbino & Soriano, LLP, Melville, NY (Nathan M. Shapiro of counsel), for appellant.

In an action for declaratory and injunctive relief, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Diccia T. Pineda-Kirwan, J.), entered August 1, 2019. The order, insofar as appealed from, denied that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was for leave to enter a default judgment against the defendants Roy Kim, Anesthesia Professionals, P.A., Andrew J. Dowd, Bayside Wellness Physical Therapy, P.C., BKLYN Chiropractic, P.C., Central Radiology, P.C., Duramed, LLC, Franklin RX, Inc., Gaogui Leasing Corp., Gaon Acupuncture, P.C., Ji Ae Kim, JPS Medical, P.C., JWC PT, P.C., Matthew Alan Wert, Newtech Chiropractic, P.C., Park West Surgical Group, LLC, Stanford R. Wert, M.D., P.C., Sky Radiology, P.C., and W. Medical Care, P.C., upon their failure to appear or answer the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

The plaintiff, Ameriprise Insurance Company, issued an automobile insurance policy to the defendant Roy Kim and his wife which covered, inter alia, a 2012 Chevrolet Camaro for the period from May 14, 2017, through November 14, 2017. Pursuant to the policy, Kim reported to the plaintiff that on August 14, 2017, the subject vehicle was involved in a hit-and-run accident in Queens, in which another vehicle allegedly reversed and struck the subject vehicle while it was parked, and then fled the scene. Upon receipt of such notification, the plaintiff conducted an investigation and concluded that neither Kim’s claim nor those of his no-fault benefit assignees were covered under the policy. The plaintiff commenced this action, inter alia, for a judgment declaring that pursuant to the policy, it has no duty to indemnify the defendants for any claims arising out of the subject accident. The defendants Kim, Anesthesia Professionals, P.A., Andrew J. Dowd, Bayside Wellness Physical Therapy, P.C., BKLYN Chiropractic, P.C., Central Radiology, P.C., Duramed, LLC, Franklin RX, Inc., Gaogui Leasing Corp., Gaon Acupuncture, P.C., Ji Ae Kim, JPS Medical, P.C., JWC PT, P.C., Matthew Alan Wert, Newtech Chiropractic, P.C., Park West Surgical Group, LLC, Stanford R. Wert, M.D., P.C., Sky Radiology, P.C., and W. Medical Care, P.C. (hereinafter collectively the non-answering defendants) failed to appear or answer the complaint. The plaintiff then moved, inter alia, for leave to enter a default judgment against the non-answering defendants and the Supreme Court denied the motion.

“A plaintiff seeking leave to enter a default judgment must file proof of proper service of the summons and the complaint, the defendant’s default, and the facts constituting the claim” (Global Liberty Ins. Co. v Surgery Ctr. of Oradell, LLC, 153 AD3d 606, 606 [2017]; see CPLR 3215 [f]). “ '[A] default judgment in a declaratory judgment action will not be granted on the default and pleadings alone for it is necessary that [the plaintiff] establish a right to a declaration’ ” against the defendants (JBBNY, LLC v Dedvukaj, 171 AD3d 898, 902 [2019], quoting Dole Food Co., Inc. v Lincoln Gen. Ins. Co., 66 AD3d 1493, 1494 [2009]; see Merchants Ins. Co. of N.H. v Long Is. Pet Cemetery, 206 AD2d 827, 828 [1994]).

Here, while the plaintiff submitted proof of proper service of the summons and the complaint, the non-answering defendants’ default, and the facts constituting the plaintiff’s claim, the plaintiff’s submissions in support of the motion failed to establish its right to the declarations sought (see JBBNY, LLC v Dedvukaj, 171 AD3d at 902). As such, we agree with the Supreme Court’s determination denying that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was for leave to enter a default judgment against the non-answering defendants.

Based on the foregoing, the plaintiff’s remaining contention has been rendered academic. Rivera, J.P., Chambers, Iannacci and Wooten, JJ., concur.

Decided on July 10, 2020

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

Law Offices of Buratti, Rothenberg & Burns (Bryan M. Rothenberg of counsel), for appellant. The Rybak Firm, PLLC (Oleg Rybak, Esq.), for respondent (no brief filed).

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Robin S. Garson, J.), entered October 15, 2018. The order, insofar as appealed from, denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

ORDERED that the order, insofar as appealed from, is reversed, with $30 costs, and defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted.

In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, defendant appeals from so much of an order of the Civil Court entered October 15, 2018 as denied defendant’s motion, which had sought summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that, pursuant to a declaratory judgment entered in the Supreme Court, New York County, defendant had no duty to provide coverage for the accident at issue in this case.

For the reasons stated in St. Mark’s Med. Health Care, PLLC as Assignee of Dejean, Ludmilla v 21st Century Ins. Co. (___ Misc 3d ___, 2020 NY Slip Op _____ [appeal No. 2019-361 K C], decided herewith), the order, insofar as appealed from, is reversed and defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted.

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

Decided on July 10, 2020

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

Law Offices of Buratti, Rothenberg & Burns (Bryan M. Rothenberg of counsel), for appellant. The Rybak Firm, PLLC (Oleg Rybak, Esq.), for respondent (no brief filed).

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Robin S. Garson, J.), entered October 15, 2018. The order, insofar as appealed from, denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

ORDERED that the order, insofar as appealed from, is reversed, with $30 costs, and defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted.

In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, defendant appeals from so much of an order of the Civil Court entered October 15, 2018 as denied defendant’s motion, which had sought summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that, pursuant to a declaratory judgment entered in the Supreme Court, New York County, defendant had no duty to provide coverage for the accident at issue in this case.

For the reasons stated in St. Mark’s Med. Health Care, PLLC as Assignee of Dejean, Ludmilla v 21st Century Ins. Co. (___ Misc 3d ___, 2020 NY Slip Op _____ [appeal No. 2019-361 K C], decided herewith), the order, insofar as appealed from, is reversed and defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted.

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

Law Offices of Buratti, Rothenberg & Burns (Bryan M. Rothenberg of counsel), for appellant. The Rybak Firm, PLLC (Oleg Rybak, Esq.), for respondent (no brief filed).

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Robin S. Garson, J.), entered October 15, 2018. The order, insofar as appealed from, denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

ORDERED, that the order, insofar as appealed from, is reversed, with $30 costs, and defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted.

Plaintiff commenced this action against “21st Century Insurance Company” in the Civil Court on June 22, 2017 to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits for services that had been provided to its assignor, who had allegedly been injured in an accident on June 7, 2011. Prior to the commencement of this action, 21st Century Advantage Insurance Company and 21st Century Security Insurance Company had brought a declaratory judgment action in the Supreme Court, New York County, against plaintiff and its assignor herein, among other parties, pertaining to the June 7, 2011 accident. By order dated June 3, 2014, the Supreme Court granted, on default, a motion by 21st Century Advantage Insurance Company and 21st Century Security Insurance Company for a default judgment against the provider and assignor herein and “ordered, adjudged and decreed” that 21st Century Advantage Insurance Company and 21st Century Security Insurance Company had “no duty to provide coverage” for the accident at issue (occurring on June 7, 2011); that the applicable insurance policy is null and void with respect to that accident; [*2]and that 21st Century Advantage Insurance Company and 21st Century Security Insurance Company are “not obligated to provide coverage for no-fault reimbursement based upon the failure of the defendants [in the Supreme Court action] to verify their claims.” A Supreme Court judgment, dated July 20, 2017, set forth the same declaration as stated in the June 3, 2014 order. Relying upon the Supreme Court’s order and judgment, defendant moved in the Civil Court for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Plaintiff opposed the motion on the grounds that there is no collateral estoppel or res judicata effect from the Supreme Court’s order and judgment, and that defendant had failed to establish a prima facie case. Plaintiff also cross-moved for summary judgment. Defendant appeals from so much of an order of the Civil Court, entered October 15, 2018, as denied defendant’s motion.

“Under the doctrine of res judicata, a final adjudication of a claim on the merits precludes relitigation of that claim and all claims arising out of the same transaction or series of transactions by a party or those in privity with a party” (Ciraldo v JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., 140 AD3d 912, 913 [2016]; see Matter of Hunter, 4 NY3d 260, 269 [2005]; Schuylkill Fuel Corp. v Nieberg Realty Corp., 250 NY 304, 306-307 [1929]). It is well settled that default judgments, which have not been vacated, can have res judicata effect (see Lazides v P & G Enters., 58 AD3d 607 [2009]; Matter of Allstate Ins. Co. v Williams, 29 AD3d 688, 690 [2006]; Matter of Eagle Ins. Co. v Facey, 272 AD2d 399 [2000]; Ava Acupuncture, P.C. v NY Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 34 Misc 3d 149[A], 2012 NY Slip Op 50233[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2012]). In light of the Supreme Court declaratory judgment, entered on default, the Civil Court should have granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint (see EBM Med. Health Care, P.C. v Republic W. Ins., 38 Misc 3d 1 [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2012]), as any judgment in favor of plaintiff in the present action would destroy or impair rights or interests established by the judgment in the declaratory judgment action (see Schuylkill Fuel Corp., 250 NY 304; Flushing Traditional Acupuncture, P.C. v Kemper Ins. Co., 42 Misc 3d 133[A], 2014 NY Slip Op 50052[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2014]; EBM Med. Health Care, P.C., 38 Misc 3d 1).

Accordingly, the order, insofar as appealed from, is reversed and defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted.

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

Goldberg Miller & Rubin, P.C. (Timothy Bishop of counsel), for appellant. Law Office of Marina Josovich, P.C., for respondent (no brief filed).

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Sharon Bourne-Clarke, J.), entered November 8, 2018. The order granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and denied defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

ORDERED that the order is modified by providing that plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment 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 moved for summary judgment. Defendant opposed the motion and cross-moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the action is premature, as plaintiff had failed to respond to defendant’s timely requests for additional verification.

Defendant’s cross motion was properly denied, as defendant failed to establish, prima facie, that its requests for additional verification were proper or timely, since defendant’s letters, which were submitted in support of its cross motion, merely stated that defendant was waiting for specified documents without actually requesting such verification from the assignor (see Points of Health Acupuncture, P.C. v Lancer Ins. Co., 28 Misc 3d 133[A], 2010 NY Slip Op 51338[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2010]), and that verification remains [*2]outstanding.

Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment should have been denied, as the proof submitted by plaintiff failed to establish that the claims at issue had not been timely denied (see Viviane Etienne Med. Care, P.C. v Country-Wide Ins. Co., 25 NY3d 498 [2015]), or that defendant had issued timely denial of claim forms that were conclusory, vague or without merit as a matter of law (see 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 Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2011]).

Accordingly, the order is modified by providing that plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is denied.

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

WESTON, J., concurs in part and dissents in part, and votes to reverse the order, deny plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, and grant defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint in the following memorandum:

While I agree with the majority that plaintiff’s motion should have been denied, I disagree with the majority’s conclusion that defendant’s cross motion was properly denied. Accordingly, I would reverse the order and grant summary judgment to defendant.

In this no-fault action, plaintiff Clear Water Psychological Services, P.C., as assignee of Nicole Mitchell, seeks payment for services rendered to Ms. Mitchell. Following receipt of plaintiff’s claims, defendant timely issued additional verification request letters seeking information to facilitate defendant’s ability to process the claims. The letters were sent to plaintiff and copied to Ms. Mitchell and her attorney. Plaintiff never responded to defendant’s letters.

After plaintiff moved for summary judgment, defendant cross-moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Defendant argued that the action was premature since plaintiff had failed to respond to its requests for verification. Defendant argued that the time to either pay the claim or issue a denial was tolled indefinitely and this action was premature (see Montefiore Med. Ctr. v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 34 AD3d 771 [2006]; New York & Presbyt. Hosp. v American Tr. Ins. Co., 287 AD2d 699, 700 [2001]; see also Mount Sinai Hosp. v Chubb Group of Ins. Cos., 43 AD3d 889, 890 [2007] [when a no-fault medical service provider fails to respond to the requests for verification, the 30 days in which to pay or deny the claim are tolled and do not begin to run]).

It is undisputed that defendant’s additional verification letters were mailed timely.

“Where there is a timely original request for verification, but no response to the request for verification is received within 30 calendar days thereafter . . . insurer, within 10 calendar days after the expiration of that 30-day period, must follow up with a second request for verification (see 11 NYCRR 65-3.6 [b]). If there is no response to the second, or follow-up, request for verification, the time in which the insurer must [*3]decide whether to pay or deny the claim is indefinitely tolled (Hospital for Joint Diseases v Travelers Prop. Cas. Ins. Co., 9 NY3d 312, 317; see also Infinity Health Prods., Ltd. v Eveready Ins. Co., 67 AD3d 862, 864-865 [2009])”

(Sound Shore Med. Ctr. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 106 AD3d 157, 163 [2013]). Here, defendant’s initial and follow-up letters were all sent within the prescribed time frame.

Defendant’s letters were detailed, unambiguous, and exacting. They did more than merely advise of processing delays. The letters stated: “Be advised that the insurer may deny the claim if the applicant does not provide within 120 calendar days from the date of the initial request either all such verifications under the applicant’s control or possession or written proof providing reasonable justification for the failure to comply” (emphasis added). Plaintiff never supplied any information and failed to provide any explanation for the failure to comply.

These letters are more than mere processing delay letters. They were mailed to plaintiff, the insured, and the insured’s counselor, each specifically instructing the applicant to take action to prevent denial of the claim. Plaintiff took no action, even to state that the materials were not under its control or possession. While the majority may have a preference as to how the letters should be addressed, that preference does not equate to legal insufficiency. Indeed, plaintiff’s claim was supported by an assignment of benefit form executed by the insured. In accordance with this assignment, arguably plaintiff was in the position to request any additional documentation from the assignor to ensure its claims could be processed by defendant.

Accordingly, I would grant summary judgment to defendant.

[*1]

Law Office of Jason Tenenbaum, P.C., Garden City, NY (Shaakee Bhuiyan of counsel), for appellant.

Baker & Cantin, P.C., Rego Park, NY (Elyse Ulino of counsel), for respondent.

In an action to recover first-party no-fault benefits for medical services rendered, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Janice A. Taylor, J.), entered June 20, 2019. The order denied that branch of the defendant’s motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff, a New Jersey medical provider, commenced this action to recover first-party no-fault benefits against the defendant, an insurance company, alleging it provided medical services to an individual (hereinafter the insured) who was injured in a motor vehicle accident and insured by the defendant. The plaintiff also alleged that the insured assigned first-party no fault benefits to it but that the defendant had failed to pay for the medical services provided by the plaintiff to the insured. The defendant moved, inter alia, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, contending that the claimed expenses were not medically necessary and that the claim for one particular expense was not reimbursable under the applicable New Jersey medical fee schedule for Automobile Insurance Personal Injury Protection and Motor Bus Medical Expense Insurance Coverage (see NJ Admin Code § 11:3-29.5). The parties agree that because the medical services were provided in New Jersey, the New Jersey fee schedule applies. By order entered June 20, 2019, the Supreme Court denied the motion. The defendant appeals, and we affirm.

“[T]he proponent of a summary judgment motion must make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, tendering sufficient evidence to demonstrate the absence of any material issues of fact” (Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]; see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853 [1985]). “Failure to make such prima facie showing requires a denial of the motion, regardless of the sufficiency of the opposing papers” (Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d at 324; see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d at 853).

Here, the defendant made a prima facie showing that the services provided were not medically necessary and that the disputed surgical device was not reimburseable by submitting, inter alia, a peer review report, an independent medical examination report, and medical documentation (see AutoOne Ins./Gen. Assur. v Eastern Is. Med. Care, P.C., 136 AD3d 722, 723 [2016]). In opposition, however, the plaintiff submitted an expert affidavit opining as to the medical necessity of the services based on, among other things, MRI results and findings made during the surgical procedure at issue. These submissions raised a triable issue of fact as to medical necessity (see AutoOne Ins./Gen. Assur. v Eastern Is. Med. Care, P.C., 136 AD3d at 723; Excel Surgery Ctr., L.L.C. v Hertz Claim Mgt. Corp., 58 Misc 3d 145[A], 2017 NY Slip Op 51951[U], *1 [App Term, 2d Dept, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2017]). The plaintiff also raised a triable issue of fact as to whether the disputed device qualified for reimbursement under New Jersey Administrative Code § 11:3-29.4 (f) (8).

Accordingly, we agree with the Supreme Court’s determination denying the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Rivera, J.P., Chambers, Duffy and Barros, JJ., concur.

The Rybak Firm, PLLC (Damin J. Toell of counsel), for appellant. Law Offices of Daniel J. Tucker (Matteo G. Sandusky of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Joy F. Campanelli, J.), entered February 15, 2017. The order denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and granted defendant’s cross motion to, in effect, hold the proceeding in abeyance pending a determination by the Workers’ Compensation Board of the parties’ rights under the Workers’ Compensation Law.

ORDERED that the order is modified by deleting the provision thereof granting the branch of defendant’s cross motion seeking, in effect, to hold the fifth cause of action in abeyance pending a determination by the Workers’ Compensation Board of the parties’ rights under the Workers’ Compensation Law and the provision thereof denying plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, and substituting, for the latter, a provision holding plaintiff’s motion in abeyance until it is ripe for determination; as so modified, the order is affirmed, without costs, and the matter is remitted to the Civil Court for a new determination, following a framed issue hearing, of the branch of defendant’s cross motion seeking, in effect, to hold the fifth cause of action in abeyance pending a determination by the Workers’ Compensation Board of the parties’ rights under the Workers’ Compensation Law, in accordance with this decision.

In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, plaintiff asserted five causes of action based on five claims and moved for summary judgment thereon. Defendant cross-moved for an order staying the action pending a determination by the Workers’ Compensation Board of the parties’ rights under the Workers’ Compensation Law and directing that, in the event plaintiff fails to file proof with the court of such an application to the Workers’ Compensation Board within 90 days of the date of the court’s order, defendant would be granted summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Defendant argued that plaintiff’s assignor had been [*2]injured during the course of his employment. By order entered February 15, 2017, the Civil Court denied plaintiff’s motion and granted defendant’s cross motion.

Contrary to plaintiff’s contention, defendant proffered sufficient evidence to support its contention that there was an issue as to whether plaintiff’s assignor had been acting in the course of his employment at the time of the accident and that, therefore, workers’ compensation benefits might be available (see e.g. Arce Med. & Diagnostic Svce v American Tr. Ins. Co., 39 Misc 3d 134[A], 2013 NY Slip Op 50531[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2013]; Jamaica Med. Supply, Inc. v American Tr. Ins. Co., 34 Misc 3d 133[A], 2011 NY Slip Op 52371[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2011]; D.A.V. Chiropractic, P.C. v American Tr. Ins. Co., 29 Misc 3d 128[A], 2010 NY Slip Op 51738[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2010]; cf. Westchester Med. Ctr. v American Tr. Ins. Co., 60 AD3d 848 [2009]). “Since ‘primary jurisdiction with respect to determinations as to the applicability of the Workers’ Compensation Law has been vested in the Workers’ Compensation Board,’ it is ‘inappropriate for the courts to express views with respect thereto pending determination by the board’ ” (Monteiro v Rasraj Foods & Catering, Inc., 79 AD3d 827, 829 [2010], quoting Botwinick v Ogden, 59 NY2d 909, 911 [1983]). This issue must be resolved in the first instance by the Workers’ Compensation Board (see O’Rourke v Long, 41 NY2d 219 [1976]; Siekkeli v Mark Mariani, Inc., 119 AD3d 766 [2014]; Dunn v American Tr. Ins. Co., 71 AD3d 629, 629-630 [2010]; Jamaica Med. Supply, Inc. v American Tr. Ins. Co., 34 Misc 3d 133[A], 2011 NY Slip Op 52371[U]; D.A.V. Chiropractic, P.C. v American Tr. Ins. Co., 29 Misc 3d 128[A], 2010 NY Slip Op 51738[U]).

In light of the foregoing, the Civil Court properly granted the branches of defendant’s cross motion seeking, in effect, to hold the first through fourth causes of action in abeyance pending a determination by the Workers’ Compensation Board of the parties’ rights under the Workers’ Compensation Law; however, instead of denying plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, the court should have held that motion in abeyance until, if ever, it becomes ripe for determination. Moreover, with respect to the fifth cause of action, plaintiff correctly argues that there is a threshold issue to be decided—namely, whether defendant’s workers’ compensation defense is precluded as to that cause of action because defendant failed to timely deny the claim (see Westchester Med. Ctr. v Lincoln Gen. Ins. Co., 60 AD3d 1045, 1046 [2009]; Friedman v Allstate Ins. Co., 51 Misc 3d 129[A], 2016 NY Slip Op 50390[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2016]). On the record before us, the date on which defendant received the claim underlying the fifth cause of action cannot be determined; consequently, this issue of fact must first be resolved following a framed issue hearing. If, after that hearing, the Civil Court finds that defendant timely denied the claim, the branch of defendant’s cross motion seeking to hold this cause of action in abeyance pending a determination by the Workers’ Compensation Board of the parties’ rights under the Workers’ Compensation Law should be granted, for the reasons stated above. If the Civil Court finds that defendant did not timely deny the claim, the branch of defendant’s cross motion seeking to hold that cause of action in abeyance should be denied, as defendant’s defense based on the Workers’ Compensation Law would be precluded; whereupon, the branch of plaintiff’s motion seeking summary judgment on that cause of action will become ripe for resolution by the Civil Court.

Accordingly, the order is modified by deleting the provision thereof granting the branch [*3]of defendant’s cross motion seeking, in effect, to hold the fifth cause of action in abeyance pending a determination by the Workers’ Compensation Board of the parties’ rights under the Workers’ Compensation Law and the provision thereof denying plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, and substituting, for the latter, a provision holding plaintiff’s motion in abeyance until it is ripe for determination, and the matter is remitted to the Civil Court for a new determination, following a framed issue hearing, of the branch of defendant’s cross motion seeking, in effect, to hold the fifth cause of action in abeyance pending a determination by the Workers’ Compensation Board of the parties’ rights under the Workers’ Compensation Law.

WESTON and ALIOTTA, JJ., concur.

PESCE, P.J., taking no part.

Bruno, Gerbino, Soriano & Aitken, LLP (Nathan M. Shapiro of counsel), for appellant. Gabriel & Shapiro, LLC, for respondent (no brief filed).

Appeal from a judgment of the District Court of Suffolk County, Third District (James F. Matthews, J.), entered August 16, 2017. The judgment, entered pursuant to an order of that court dated April 12, 2017 denying defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and granting plaintiff’s cross motion for summary judgment, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $3,337.

ORDERED that the judgment is reversed, without costs, the order dated April 12, 2017 is vacated, 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 it had timely denied the claims based upon plaintiff’s failure to appear for duly scheduled examinations under oath (EUOs), and plaintiff cross-moved for summary judgment. In an order dated April 12, 2017, the District Court denied defendant’s motion, finding that the letters scheduling the EUOs of plaintiff were defective because they did not specify the claims to which the letters pertained, and the court granted plaintiff’s cross motion. A judgment awarding plaintiff the principal sum of $3,337 was entered on August 16, 2017 pursuant to the April 12, 2017 order.

Defendant established that the EUO scheduling letters had been properly mailed (see St. Vincent’s Hosp. of Richmond v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 50 AD3d 1123 [2008]).

“Contrary to the finding by the District Court, the EUO scheduling letters were not ‘defective.’ We note that the initial EUO scheduling letter identified the assignor, the date of the accident and defendant’s file number. The initial EUO scheduling letter resulted in [*2]a toll of defendant’s time to pay or deny plaintiff’s claims as to each claim form which had been submitted by the same plaintiff for the same assignor and accident prior to the EUO request, as long as the request had been timely with respect to such claim, and to any claim form received subsequent to that request, but before plaintiff breached a policy condition by failing to appear for two properly scheduled EUOs (see ARCO Med. NY, P.C. v Lancer Ins. Co., 34 Misc 3d 134[A], 2011 NY Slip Op 52382[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2011]; see also Tsatkis v State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 36 Misc 3d 129[A], 2012 NY Slip Op 51268[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2012]). Defendant further established that plaintiff had failed to appear for the duly scheduled EUOs (see Stephen Fogel Psychological, P.C. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 35 AD3d 720 [2006]) and that defendant had timely mailed (see St. Vincent’s Hosp. of Richmond, 50 AD3d 1123) its denial of claim forms denying the claims on that ground. In opposition, plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact” (First Class Med., P.C. v Ameriprise Ins. Co., 63 Misc 3d 135[A], 2019 NY Slip Op 50477[U], *1-2 [App Term, 2d Dept, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2019]).

Accordingly, the judgment is reversed, the order dated April 12, 2017 is vacated, defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted and plaintiff’s cross motion for summary judgment is denied.

ADAMS, P.J., TOLBERT and RUDERMAN, JJ., concur.

Freiberg, Peck & Kang, LLP (Yilo Kang of counsel), for appellant. The Rybak Firm, PLLC (Damin J. Toell of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal from a judgment of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Sharon Bourne-Clarke, J.), entered September 21, 2018. The judgment, entered pursuant to an order of that court entered August 13, 2018 granting plaintiff’s motion for the entry of a default judgment and denying defendant’s cross motion, for, in effect, summary judgment dismissing the complaint, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $2,190.34.

ORDERED that, on the court’s own motion, the notice of appeal from the order dated August 13, 2018 is deemed a premature notice of appeal from the judgment entered September 21, 2018 (see CPLR 5520 [c]); and it is further,

ORDERED that the judgment is reversed, with $30 costs, the order entered August 13, 2018 is vacated, plaintiff’s motion for the entry of a default judgment is denied, defendant’s cross motion for, in effect, summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted, and the matter is remitted to the Civil Court for the entry of a judgment in favor of defendant dismissing the complaint without prejudice.

In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, the affidavit of service alleges that the summons and complaint were served by mail pursuant to CPLR 312-a. In support of plaintiff’s motion for a default judgment, its counsel stated that defendant’s time to answer had expired. However, plaintiff’s papers do not contain an acknowledgment of service. Defendant cross-moved for, in effect, summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that plaintiff had failed to serve a summons and complaint within 120 days of the commencement of the action (see CCA 411). By order entered August 13, 2018, the Civil Court granted plaintiff’s motion and denied defendant’s cross motion. A judgment was subsequently entered on September 21, 2018 awarding plaintiff the principal sum of $2,190.34. We deem [*2]defendant’s notice of appeal from the order to be a premature notice of appeal from the judgment (see CPLR 5520 [c]).

“Proof that a defendant was properly served with process is a prerequisite to the entry of a default judgment against that defendant (see CPLR 3215 [f]; Cordero v Barreiro-Cordero, 129 AD3d 899 [2015]). ‘Service of the summons [is] complete . . . in the case of service pursuant to CPLR 312-a, by filing the acknowledgment of receipt, which constitutes proof of service (CPLR 312-a [b] [1]; 306 [d])’ ” (Active Care Med. Supply Corp. v Kemper Ins. Co., 63 Misc 3d 163[A], 2019 NY Slip Op 50923[U], *2[App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2019], quoting Richard A. Hellander, M.D., P.C. v Metlife Auto & Home Ins. Co., 48 Misc 3d 59, 61-62 [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2015]). Here, the record fails to demonstrate that a signed acknowledgment of receipt was returned to plaintiff (see CPLR 312-a [d]). As a result, plaintiff failed to acquire personal jurisdiction over defendant (see CPLR 312-a [b]; Krasa v Dial 7 Car & Limousine Serv., Inc., 147 AD3d 744, 745 [2017]; Castillo v JFK Medport, Inc.,116 AD3d 899, 900 [2014]; Klein v Educational Loan Servicing, LLC,71 AD3d 957, 958 [2010]; Bennett v Acosta, 68 AD3d 910, 911 [2009]; Horseman Antiques, Inc. v Huch,50 AD3d 963, 964 [2008]). Consequently, defendant’s cross motion should have been granted.

Accordingly, the judgment is reversed, the order entered August 13, 2018 is vacated, plaintiff’s motion for the entry of a default judgment is denied, defendant’s cross motion for, in effect, summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted, and the matter is remitted to the Civil Court for the entry of a judgment in favor of defendant dismissing the complaint without prejudice.

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

Decided on June 12, 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 J’naia Boyd of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Phillip Hom, J.), entered May 31, 2018. The order granted the branch of defendant’s motion seeking to dismiss the complaint on the ground of laches.

ORDERED that the order is reversed, without costs, the branch of defendant’s motion seeking to dismiss the complaint on the ground of laches is denied, and the matter is remitted to the Civil Court for a determination of the remaining branches of defendant’s motion.

Insofar as is relevant to this appeal in this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, defendant moved to, among other things, dismiss the complaint on the ground of laches, based on plaintiff’s delay in prosecuting the action. The Civil Court granted this branch of defendant’s motion and found that the remaining branches of the motion were moot.

Laches is not a proper basis to dismiss the complaint in this action (see Arroyo v Board of Educ. of City of NY, 110 AD3d 17 [2013]; see also Montalvo v Mumpus Restorations, Inc., 110 AD3d 1045 [2013]; General Assur. Co. v Lachmenar, 45 Misc 3d 134[A], 2014 NY Slip Op 51722[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2014]). Accordingly, the order is reversed, the branch of defendant’s motion seeking to dismiss the complaint on the ground of laches is denied, and the matter is remitted to the Civil Court for a determination of the remaining branches of defendant’s motion.

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