The Rybak Firm, PLLC (Damin J. Toell and Karina Barska of counsel), for appellant. Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner, LLP (Amanda C. Scuder and Matthew Sarles of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Robin Kelly Sheares, J.), entered February 7, 2018. The order denied plaintiff’s motion to, in effect, vacate an order of that court entered February 27, 2017 granting, without written opposition by plaintiff, defendant’s motion for, in effect, summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

ORDERED that the order entered February 7, 2018 is affirmed, with $25 costs.

In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, defendant Republic Western Insurance Company (Republic) moved for, in effect, summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that this action by plaintiff TAM Medical Supply Corp. (TAM) was barred under the doctrine of res judicata, by virtue of an order of the Supreme Court, New York County, which had granted a motion by Republic for a default judgment against TAM and its assignor, declaring that Republic is not obligated to pay for no-fault benefits on behalf of the assignor. TAM submitted papers in opposition to Republic’s motion, but they were not served timely in accordance with a briefing schedule stipulation which had been executed by attorneys for both parties. By order entered February 27, 2017, the Civil Court (Robin Kelly Sheares, J.) granted Republic’s motion, declining to consider TAM’s late opposition papers. Thereafter, TAM moved, in effect, to vacate the February 27, 2017 order, arguing that it had a reasonable excuse of law office failure for submitting untimely opposition to Republic’s motion and a meritorious claim of breach of contract. Republic opposed the motion. TAM appeals from an order of the Civil Court (Robin Kelly Sheares, J.), entered February 7, 2018, denying TAM’s motion.

The record before us indicates that TAM had moved, in effect, to vacate the February 27, 2017 order and, thus, was required to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for the default and a potentially meritorious opposition to Republic’s motion (see CPLR 5015 [a]; Eugene Di Lorenzo, Inc. v A.C. Dutton Lbr. Co., 67 NY2d 138, 141 [1986]). However, the explanation of law office failure by TAM’s attorneys’ calendar clerk was insufficient to establish an excuse for submitting TAM’s opposition papers late. Consequently, it is unnecessary to determine whether TAM established a potentially meritorious opposition to Republic’s motion (see Rubinstein v Rubinstein, 128 AD3d 1047 [2015]). As TAM failed to demonstrate that the February 27, 2017 order should have been vacated, TAM’s motion was properly denied.

Accordingly, the order entered February 7, 2018 is affirmed.

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

Decision Date: June 12, 2020

Gullo & Associates, LLP (Cristina Carollo of counsel), for appellant. Gary Tsirelman, P.C. (David M. Gottlieb and Selina Chin of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal from a judgment of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Robin S. Garson, J.), entered May 31, 2018. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, awarded plaintiff the sum of $12,182.91.

ORDERED that the judgment is reversed, with $30 costs, and the matter is remitted to the Civil Court for a new trial limited to the issue of medical necessity.

Pursuant to an order entered February 17, 2017 in this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, the only issue for trial was whether the supplies at issue were medically necessary. At the nonjury trial, plaintiff’s attorney moved to preclude defendant’s expert witness on the ground that disclosure of the witness was untimely. The Civil Court granted plaintiff’s application to preclude the witness and, since defendant did not have any other witnesses, found for plaintiff. A judgment awarding plaintiff the sum of $12,182.91 was entered on May 31, 2018.

“CPLR 3101 (d) (1) (i) does not require a party to respond to a demand for expert witness information at any specific time nor does it mandate that a party be precluded from proffering expert testimony merely because of noncompliance with the statute, unless there is evidence of intentional or willful failure to disclose and a showing of prejudice by the opposing party” (Cutsogeorge v Hertz Corp., 264 AD2d 752, 753-754 [1999] [internal quotation marks omitted]). Plaintiff attempted to demonstrate prejudice before the Civil Court. However, since defendant’s witness was the doctor who had prepared the peer review reports upon which the denials of the claims were based, his name was listed as such in each of the denial of claim forms, and his report was attached to defendant’s motion for summary judgment, it is clear that plaintiff was not prejudiced (see id.). Thus, the Civil Court erred in precluding defendant’s expert from testifying (see Burbige v Siben & Ferber, 115 AD3d 632 [2014]; Market St. Surgical Ctr. v Global [*2]Liberty Ins. Co.,61 Misc 3d 155[A], 2018 NY Slip Op 51822[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2018]).

In view of the foregoing, this court need not reach defendant’s other argument.

Accordingly, the judgment is reversed and the matter is remitted to the Civil Court for a new trial limited to the issue of medical necessity.

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

The Rybak Firm, PLLC (Damin J. Toell and Karina Barska of counsel), for appellant. Law Offices of Buratti, Rothenberg & Burns (Bryan M. Rothenberg and Argyria A.N. Keltagias of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Richard J. Montelione, J.), entered June 29, 2018. The order granted defendant’s motion (1) to vacate an order of that court (Michael Gerstein, J.) entered November 29, 2017 granting plaintiff’s unopposed motion for the entry of a judgment based on defendant’s alleged failure to answer the complaint, (2) to, in effect, vacate the judgment entered March 1, 2018 pursuant to the November 29, 2017 order, and (3) upon such vacatur, to grant defendant summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

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

Plaintiff commenced this action on June 22, 2017 to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits for services provided to Ludmilla Dejean, who was injured in a motor vehicle accident on or about June 7, 2011. The record contains an answer by defendant 21st Century Insurance Company (21st Century), along with an affidavit signed on July 21, 2017, attesting to service of the answer upon plaintiff’s attorneys by mail on July 21, 2017. On November 20, 2017, plaintiff served a motion seeking the entry of a default judgment on the ground that plaintiff had not received an answer from defendant. By order entered November 29, 2017, the return date of plaintiff’s motion, the Civil Court (Michael Gerstein, J.) granted the motion, finding, among other things, that defendant had “failed to appear for and answer the calendar call on the return date of the motion [and] to submit any opposition.” A default judgment was entered on March 1, 2018, pursuant to the November 29, 2017 order, awarding plaintiff the principal sum of $527.54.

In April 2018, defendant moved to vacate the November 29, 2017 order and, in effect, the [*2]judgment entered pursuant thereto and, upon such vacatur, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that plaintiff’s action is precluded by an order of the Supreme Court, New York County, dated June 3, 2014, granting a motion by 21st Century for a default judgment against Freedom Chiropractic, P.C. and its assignor, Ludmilla Dejean, declaring, insofar as is relevant to the case at bar, that 21st Century is not obligated to reimburse Freedom Chiropractic, P.C. and its assignor for claims arising out of the June 7, 2011 accident, and that the applicable insurance policy is null and void with respect to that accident. Defendant also presented a judgment that was entered on July 21, 2017 in the Supreme Court, New York County, making the same declarations as were made in the June 3, 2014 order as to the parties’ rights. Plaintiff opposed defendant’s motion in the Civil Court. By order entered June 29, 2018, the Civil Court (Richard J. Montelione, J.) granted defendant’s motion and awarded defendant summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

As plaintiff acknowledges on appeal, defendant argued that defendant “did not receive at least 13 days’ notice [of plaintiff’s motion for leave to enter a default judgment], the minimum required for motions served by regular mail (see CPLR 2103 [b] [2]; 2214 [b]). Absence of proper service of a motion is a sufficient and complete excuse for a default on a motion, and deprives the court of jurisdiction to entertain the motion” (Financial Servs. Veh. Trust v Law Offs. of Dustin J. Dente, 86 AD3d 532, 532-533 [2011]; Bianco v LiGreci, 298 AD2d 482, 482 [2002]). As the Civil Court was deprived of jurisdiction, the November 29, 2017 order and the March 1, 2018 judgment entered pursuant thereto were nullities (see Financial Servs. Veh. Trust, 86 AD3d at 533).

In any event, defendant has demonstrated an excusable default and a meritorious defense to the action. By virtue of the Supreme Court’s declaratory judgment, there has been a conclusive determination of the merits of the claim in question (see Bayer v City of New York, 115 AD3d 897 [2014]; Panagiotou v Samaritan Vil., Inc., 88 AD3d 779 [2011]; Methal v City of New York, 50 AD3d 654 [2008]). In view of the foregoing, the Civil Court properly granted defendant’s motion, and we do not reach the parties’ remaining arguments.

Accordingly, the order is affirmed.

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

The Rybak Firm, PLLC (Damin J. Toell and Karina Barska of counsel), for appellant. Law Offices of Buratti, Rothenberg & Burns (Bryan M. Rothenberg and Argyria A.N. Kettagias of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Michael Gerstein, J.), entered December 11, 2018. 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 affirmed, with $25 costs.

In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, plaintiff Wave Medical Services, P.C. (Wave) moved for summary judgment and defendant Farmers New Century Insurance Co. (Farmers) cross-moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. In support of its cross motion, Farmers submitted an order that had been entered in a Supreme Court declaratory judgment action which granted a motion brought by, among others, Farmers seeking a default judgment against, among others, Wave. The order found specifically that the plaintiffs therein, including Farmers, were entitled to a default judgment on liability against Wave, but did not declare the rights of the parties. The Civil Court denied Wave’s motion for summary judgment and granted Farmers’ cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint based upon the Supreme Court order. In response to Wave’s appeal, Farmers submits a judgment that was entered in the Supreme Court which declared, among other things, that Farmers has no duty to pay any no-fault [*2]benefits to Wave in any current or future proceeding because Wave is ineligible to collect no-fault benefits pursuant to 11 NYCRR 65-3.16 (a) (12).

A court “may in general take judicial notice of matters of public record” (Headley v New York City Tr. Auth., 100 AD3d 700, 701 [2012]; see Matter of Oak Tree Realty Co., LLC v Board of Assessors, 71 AD3d 1027 [2010]; Kingsbrook Jewish Med. Ctr. v Allstate Ins. Co., 61 AD3d 13 [2009]). In light of the Supreme Court’s declaration that Farmers has no obligation to pay no-fault benefits to Wave in any current proceeding, set forth in the Supreme Court judgment of which we take judicial notice, we find that the Civil Court properly denied Wave’s motion for summary judgment and granted Farmers’ cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint (see Healing Art Acupuncture, P.C. v 21st Century Ins. Co.,59 Misc 3d 139[A], 2018 NY Slip Op 50583[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2018]).

Accordingly, the order is affirmed.

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

Paul Kenny

[*1]

Kopelevich & Feldsherova, P.C., Brooklyn, NY (David Landfair of counsel), for appellants.

Hollander Legal Group, P.C. (Allan S. Hollander and Harris J. Zakarin, P.C., Melville, NY, of counsel), for respondent.

In an action for a judgment declaring that the plaintiff is not obligated to pay certain no-fault insurance benefits, the defendants Jamaica Wellness Medical, P.C., LVOV Acupuncture, P.C., and United Wellness Chiropractic, P.C., appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (James P. McCormack, J.), entered July 11, 2017. The order granted the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, in effect, declaring that the plaintiff is not obligated to pay claims for no-fault insurance benefits submitted by the defendants Jamaica Wellness Medical, P.C., LVOV Acupuncture, P.C., and United Wellness Chiropractic, P.C., on behalf of the defendants Andy Williams, Amanda Nixon, and Shaquille Swan.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Nassau County, for the entry of a judgment, inter alia, declaring that the plaintiff is not obligated to pay claims for no-fault insurance benefits submitted by the defendants Jamaica Wellness Medical, P.C., LVOV Acupuncture, P.C., and United Wellness Chiropractic, P.C., on behalf of the defendants Andy Williams, Amanda Nixon, and Shaquille Swan.

The defendants Andy Williams, Amanda Nixon, and Shaquille Swan (hereinafter collectively the individual defendants) allegedly were injured in a motor vehicle accident and assigned their rights to recover for no-fault benefits under the vehicle owner’s insurance policy to the defendants Jamaica Wellness Medical, P.C., LVOV Acupuncture, P.C., and United Wellness Chiropractic, P.C. (hereinafter collectively the medical provider defendants). The plaintiff commenced this action for a judgment declaring that it is not obligated to pay claims for no-fault insurance benefits submitted by the medical provider defendants on behalf of the individual defendants on the ground that the individual defendants failed to appear for two scheduled examinations under oath (hereinafter EUOs). The plaintiff moved for summary judgment, in effect, declaring that the plaintiff is not obligated to pay claims for no-fault insurance benefits submitted by the medical provider defendants on behalf of the individual defendants. The medical provider defendants opposed the motion. In an order entered July 11, 2017, the Supreme Court granted the plaintiff’s motion. The medical provider defendants appeal.

“ ’The failure to comply with the provision of an insurance policy requiring the insured to submit to an examination under oath . . . is a material breach of the policy, precluding recovery of the policy proceeds’ ” (Interboro Ins. Co. v Clennon, 113 AD3d 596, 597 [2014], quoting Argento v Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 184 AD2d 487, 487-488 [1992]). An insurer may establish its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law based on the failure to submit to an EUO by establishing that the letters scheduling the EUOs were timely and properly mailed, that the insured failed to appear at two scheduled EUOs, and that the insurer issued a timely and proper denial of the claims (see IDS Prop. Cas. Ins. Co. v Stracar Med. Servs., P.C., 116 AD3d 1005, 1007 [2014]; Interboro Ins. Co. v Clennon, 113 AD3d at 597).

Here, the plaintiff established, prima facie, that the letters scheduling the EUOs were timely and properly mailed by submitting an affidavit from an individual who had personal knowledge of the standard office practice for ensuring that the letters are properly addressed and mailed (see Progressive Cas. Ins. Co. v Metro Psychological Servs., P.C., 139 AD3d 693, 694 [2016]). In opposition, the medical provider defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact because they did not submit any evidence that the letters were not properly mailed. The medical provider defendants’ mere denial of receipt was insufficient to rebut a presumption that the letters were received (see Nassau Ins. Co. v Murray, 46 NY2d 828, 829-830 [1978]).

The plaintiff also established, prima facie, that the individual defendants failed to appear at two scheduled EUOs by submitting the affidavits of individuals with personal knowledge that the individual defendants failed to appear at the location of the EUOs on the dates they were scheduled (see Stephen Fogel Psychological, P.C. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 35 AD3d 720, 721 [2006]). In opposition, the medical provider defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact. They did not submit evidence to establish that the first EUO was mutually rescheduled (see DVS Chiropractic, P.C. v Interboro Ins. Co., 36 Misc 3d 138[A], 2012 NY Slip Op 51443[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2012]).

Additionally, the plaintiff established, prima facie, that it issued a timely and proper denial of the claims by demonstrating that the denials were sent within 30 days of the second scheduled EUO, through affidavits from individuals who had personal knowledge as to the standard office practice for ensuring that denials are properly addressed and mailed (see 11 NYCRR 65-3.5 [b]; 65-3.8 [a] [1]; Progressive Cas. Ins. Co. v Metro Psychological Servs., P.C., 139 AD3d at 694). The affidavits submitted by the medical provider defendants in opposition failed to raise a triable issue of fact because they did not directly contradict the affidavits submitted by the plaintiff with regard to its standard office practices for addressing and mailing denial letters.

Furthermore, the medical provider defendants’ contention that the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment should have been denied because the plaintiff failed to either pay or deny four of the medical provider defendants’ bills is without merit because the bills were sent more than 45 days after service was rendered (see 11 NYCRR 65-1.1 [d]).

Accordingly, we agree with the Supreme Court’s determination to grant the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, in effect, declaring that the plaintiff is not obligated to pay claims for no-fault insurance benefits submitted by the medical provider defendants on behalf of the individual defendants. Since this is a declaratory judgment action, we remit the matter to the Supreme Court, Nassau County, for the entry of judgment, inter alia, declaring that the plaintiff is not obligated to pay claims for no-fault insurance benefits submitted by the medical provider defendants on behalf of the individual defendants (see Lanza v Wagner, 11 NY2d 317, 334 [1962]). Chambers, J.P., Roman, Cohen and Christopher, JJ., concur.