Decided on January 17, 2019

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

Decided on January 17, 2019

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

Law Office of Goldstein & Flecker (Lawrence J. Chanice of counsel), for appellant. Russell Friedman & Associates, LLP (Dara C. Goodman of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal from an order of the District Court of Nassau County, First District (James M. Darcy, J.), dated April 25, 2017. The order denied defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3216.

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

In April 2011, plaintiff commenced this action, by an attorney-verified complaint, to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits. Defendant interposed an answer in May 2011. Over five years later, in November 2016, defendant served a 90-day written demand pursuant to CPLR 3216 (b) (3), which was received by plaintiff on November 22, 2016. On March 22, 2017, defendant moved to dismiss the complaint, pursuant to CPLR 3216, as defendant had not been served with a notice of trial. On March 29, 2017, plaintiff served defendant with a notice of trial. Plaintiff’s counsel’s affirmation in opposition to defendant’s motion stated that plaintiff’s “delay in responding to [defendant’s] 90-day notice was neither willful nor contumacious, and does not evidence an intent to abandon the action.” By order dated April 25, 2017, the District Court denied the motion.

Once a 90-day demand is served upon a plaintiff, the plaintiff must either comply with the demand by filing a notice of trial within 90 days (see CPLR 3216 [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]). Since plaintiff failed to do any of these, it was required, in opposition to defendant’s motion to dismiss, to establish both a justifiable excuse for its delay in properly responding to the 90-day demand and the existence of a meritorious cause of action (see Baczkowski v Collins Constr. Co., 89 NY2d 499 [1997]; Felix, 52 AD3d 653; A.M. Med., P.C., 22 Misc 3d 43). Here, “plaintiff’s bare statement in its attorney’s affirmation, after a [37-day] delay in responding to defendant’s 90-day notice, that its ‘delay in responding to [defendant’s] 90-day notice was neither willful nor contumacious, and does not evidence an intent to abandon the action,’ failed to establish a justifiable excuse for its delay” (Midwood Total Rehab, P.C. v GEICO Ins. Co., 59 Misc 3d 146[A], 2018 NY Slip Op 50763[U], *1 [App Term, 2d Dept, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2018]).

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

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

[*1]

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Department, 2d, 11th and 13th Judicial Districts, January 11, 2019

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

Marshall & Marshall, PLLC (Naim M. Peress and Jeffrey Kadushin of counsel) for appellant.

Zara Javakov, P.C. (Zara Javakov of counsel) for respondent.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, with $30 costs, and the matter is remitted to the Civil Court for the entry of a judgment in favor of defendant dismissing the complaint.

At the commencement of a nonjury trial in this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits from Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corporation (sued herein as MVAIC Ins. Co.), the parties stipulated that since the sole issue was whether plaintiff had exhausted its remedies, “if [MVAIC] can prove . . . that there was potential coverage through the assignor’s son who . . . lived with him on the date of the loss, then MVAIC has no burden to pay . . . these claims.” The only witness at trial was an employee of the New York Liquidation Bureau (NYLB), who testified pursuant to a subpoena served by MVAIC. He stated that, after the Supreme Court had entered an order placing Long Island Insurance Company (LIIC) into liquidation, NYLB had seized all of LIIC’s books and records, and administered LIIC’s claims, and that LIIC was closed. In response to the subpoena, he reviewed documents in a file seized from LIIC regarding a particular date of loss, a named person and a claim number. Among the documents he reviewed was an insurance policy from LIIC which was apparently issued to a [*2]person living at the same address as plaintiff’s assignor and whose name was the same as the assignor’s son with the exception of one letter. The Civil{**62 Misc 3d at 74} Court held that the documents were not admissible because the NYLB witness was unable to establish that the documents were admissible as business records pursuant to CPLR 4518. Although the court stated that the witness was credible, the court held that the issue to be resolved “was whether or not there was an insurance policy or coverage at the time of the accident” and that MVAIC had failed to sustain its burden.

[1, 2] The record establishes that NYLB seized records of LIIC after an order of liquidation of LIIC had been entered by the Supreme Court. Moreover, claims examiners employed by NYLB utilize the records to administer outstanding no-fault claims which have been submitted to LIIC. As NYLB incorporates and relies upon the records of LIIC, the records are admissible (see People v DiSalvo, 284 AD2d 547 [2001]; Plymouth Rock Fuel Corp. v Leucadia, Inc., 117 AD2d 727 [1986]; cf. West Val. Fire Dist. No. 1 v Village of Springville, 294 AD2d 949 [2002]). Since the pretrial stipulation simply required MVAIC to prove “that there was potential coverage,” MVAIC was not required to prove that “there was an insurance policy or coverage at the time of the accident.” In light of the foregoing, MVAIC sustained its burden of proving “that there was potential coverage.” Plaintiff, as assignee, was required to exhaust its remedies against all potential insurance carriers before seeking relief from defendant (see Hauswirth v American Home Assur. Co., 244 AD2d 528 [1997]; Orlin & Cohen Orthopedic Assoc. v Motor Veh. Acc. Indem. Corp., 58 Misc 3d 132[A], 2017 NY Slip Op 51778[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2017]). Here, plaintiff did not demonstrate that it had exhausted its remedies.

Accordingly, the judgment is reversed and the matter is remitted to the Civil Court for the entry of a judgment in favor of defendant dismissing the complaint.

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

Gary Tsirelman, P.C. (David M. Gottlieb of counsel), for appellant. Peter C. Merani, P.C. (Eric M. Wahrburg and Smauel Kamara 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 August 9, 2016. The order granted the branches of defendant’s motion seeking, in effect pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a) (1) and (4), to vacate a judgment of that court entered October 31, 2014 upon defendant’s failure to appear or answer the complaint, and to compel plaintiff to accept defendant’s answer.

ORDERED that the order is reversed, with $30 costs, the branches of defendant’s motion seeking, in effect pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a) (1) and (4), to vacate the judgment entered October 31, 2014, and to compel plaintiff to accept defendant’s answer are denied, and the matter is remitted to the Civil Court to determine the remaining branches of defendant’s motion.

In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, the affidavit of service indicates that defendant was served on September 16, 2014 by delivery of the summons and complaint to Grace Annunziata at defendant’s Brooklyn office. The affidavit described Annunziata and stated that she was known to the process server to be defendant’s employee, who was authorized to accept delivery at that Brooklyn address. Defendant failed to appear or answer, and, upon plaintiff’s motion, a default judgment in the amount of $4,057.51 was entered against defendant on October 31, 2014. In October 2015, defendant moved, in effect pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a) (1) and (4), to, among other things, vacate the default judgment and [*2]compel plaintiff to accept defendant’s answer, which was annexed to the motion papers. Defendant’s claim representative asserted in an affidavit in support of the motion that the summons had not been “served on Allstate as alleged.” Defendant’s motion also sought the alternative relief of modification of the judgment on the ground that the interest was not correctly calculated. Plaintiff opposed the motion. By order entered August 9, 2016, the Civil Court granted the branches of defendant’s motion seeking to vacate the default judgment and to compel plaintiff to accept defendant’s answer, finding that defendant had established a reasonable excuse for the default and a potentially meritorious defense to the action.

A defendant seeking to vacate a default in appearing or answering based on an excusable default must demonstrate both a reasonable excuse for the default and the existence of a potentially meritorious defense to the action (see CPLR 5015 [a] [1]; Eugene Di Lorenzo, Inc. v A.C. Dutton Lbr. Co., 67 NY2d 138, 141 [1986]). Here, the summons and complaint were served by a process server, who provided a description of Grace Annunziata, the recipient of service, and attested that Annunziata was known to him to be defendant’s employee who was authorized to accept service at defendant’s address. “A process server’s affidavit of service constitutes prima facie evidence of proper service on a corporation pursuant to CPLR 311 (a) (1)” (Hayden v Southern Wine & Spirits of Upstate NY, Inc., 126 AD3d 673, 673 [2015] [internal citations omitted]).

Although a defendant’s sworn denial of receipt of service may rebut the presumption of proper service established by the process server’s affidavit, defendant did not submit an affidavit from Annunziata denying either that she had been authorized to accept service or that she had accepted service of the summons and complaint (see Pain Mgt. Ctr. of N.J., P.C. v All Car Rent-A-Car, 57 Misc 3d 138[A], 2017 NY Slip Op 51310[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2017]). Rather, defendant proffered an affidavit by its claim representative, who admitted that defendant maintained a claims office at the same Brooklyn address which is listed in the affidavit of service. Defendant’s claim representative’s assertion that the summons was not “served on Allstate as alleged” lacked sufficient detail to rebut the prima facie proof of proper service set forth in the affidavit of service (see Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Quinones, 114 AD3d 719 [2014]) and did not demonstrate a reasonable excuse for defendant’s default (see Herrera v MTA Bus Co., 100 AD3d 962 [2012]). We note that defendant also failed to adequately explain its 11-month delay in seeking to vacate its default (see Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Gutierrez, 102 AD3d 825 [2013]).

As the Civil Court did not determine the remaining branches of defendant’s motion seeking, in the alternative, to, among other things, modify the judgment, the matter is remitted to the Civil Court for a determination of the remaining branches of defendant’s motion.

Accordingly, the order is reversed, the branches of defendant’s motion seeking, in effect pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a) (1) and (4), to vacate the judgment entered October 31, 2014, and to compel plaintiff to accept defendant’s answer are denied, and the matter is remitted to the Civil Court to determine the remaining branches of defendant’s motion.

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

Glinkenhouse, Floumanhaft & Queen (Alan Queen of counsel), for appellant-respondent. Peter C. Merani, P.C. (Eric M. Wahrburg and Edward Tobin of counsel), for respondent-appellant.

Appeal and cross appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Terrence C. O’Connor, J.), entered March 8, 2017. The order, insofar as appealed from by plaintiff, granted the branch of defendant’s motion seeking to toll the accrual of all postjudgment interest to the extent of tolling the interest from May 14, 2004 through February 8, 2008. The order, insofar as cross-appealed from by defendant, denied the branch of defendant’s motion seeking to direct the clerk to enter a satisfaction of judgment and granted the branch of its motion seeking to toll the accrual of all postjudgment interest only to the extent of tolling the accrual of interest from May 14, 2004 through February 8, 2008.

ORDERED that the order is modified by providing that the branch of defendant’s motion seeking to toll the accrual of all postjudgment interest is denied and by vacating so much thereof as denied the branch of defendant’s motion seeking an order directing the clerk to enter a satisfaction of judgment; as so modified, the order is affirmed, without costs, and the matter is remitted to the Civil Court for a new determination of the branch of defendant’s motion seeking an order directing the clerk to enter a satisfaction of judgment in accordance with this decision and order.

Following a nonjury trial in 2000 of this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, the Civil Court awarded a judgment to plaintiff in the principal sum of $4,387, together with statutory interest, costs and fees. A judgment in the sum of $9,512.69 was entered on May 14, 2004 and was served with notice of entry upon defense counsel on June 8, 2008. Defendant acknowledged the receipt of a marshal’s notice of levy and sale on September 2, 2016. The notice advised defendant that defendant owed plaintiff the amount of the judgment, [*2]together with $376,324.80 in postjudgment interest. It is undisputed that, in October 2016, defendant issued a check to the marshal in the amount of $9,988.32. Several months later, defendant moved for, among other things, an order directing the clerk to enter a satisfaction of judgment; “modify[ing]” the judgment; and staying the accrual of postjudgment interest on the grounds that defendant had paid the “face value of the judgment” and that plaintiff is not entitled to postjudgment interest because plaintiff’s unreasonable delay had caused the interest to accrue. Plaintiff opposed the motion, arguing that interest accrues until a claim is paid. By order entered March 8, 2017, the Civil Court granted defendant’s motion to the extent of staying the accrual of interest from May 14, 2004, the date that the judgment was entered, through February 8, 2008, the date that plaintiff served a copy of the judgment with notice of entry. This appeal and cross appeal ensued.

A money judgment bears interest from the date of its entry (see CPLR 5003), and, generally, the interest accrues until the judgment is paid (see Matter of Matra Bldg. Corp. v Kucker, 19 AD3d 496 [2005]; Martin v Tafflock, 166 AD2d 635 [1990]). “Postjudgment interest is awarded as a penalty for the delayed payment of a judgment” (ERHAL Holding Corp. v Rusin, 252 AD2d 473, 474 [1998]; see B.Z. Chiropractic, P.C. v Allstate Ins. Co., 56 Misc 3d 139[A], 2017 NY Slip Op 51091[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2017]). Contrary to defendant’s assertion, there is no evidence of actions or conduct by plaintiff which prevented defendant from paying the judgment (see Bankers Trust Co. of Cal., N.A. v Brunson, 40 AD3d 672, 672 [2007]; ERHAL Holding Corp., 252 AD2d at 474; cf. Danielowich v PBL Dev., 292 AD2d 414 [2002]). Consequently, the Civil Court erred in tolling the accrual of postjudgment interest for the period in question.

We remit the matter to the Civil Court for a new determination of the branch of defendant’s motion seeking to direct the entry of a satisfaction of judgment. The amount of a partial satisfaction, if any, should be calculated by determining the total payments received as of a certain date, and deducting from that sum the marshal’s fee, the interest accrued to that date, and the poundage fee due to the marshal upon the collection of such sum (see Ifudu v Ross, 60 Misc 3d 140[A], 2018 NY Slip Op 51199[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2018]). In this regard, we note that plaintiff is entitled to receive only simple interest at the statutory rate of nine percent per year from the date of the entry of the judgment through the date of the payment of the judgment (see CPLR 5004; B.Z. Chiropractic, P.C. v Allstate Ins. Co., 56 Misc 3d 139[A], 2017 NY Slip Op 51091[U]), and that the marshal’s notice of levy and sale served upon defendant inexplicably stated interest in the amount of $376,324.80. We further note that defendant demonstrated, by showing the submission to a New York City marshal of a check which the marshal endorsed, that defendant had paid the amount of $9,988.32 (see CPLR 5021 [a]).

Accordingly, the order is modified by providing that the branch of defendant’s motion seeking to toll the accrual of all postjudgment interest is denied and by vacating so much thereof as denied the branch of defendant’s motion seeking an order directing the clerk to enter a satisfaction of judgment. The matter is remitted to the Civil Court for a new determination of the branch of defendant’s motion seeking an order directing the clerk to enter a satisfaction of judgment.

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

Decided on December 7, 2018

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

Decided on December 7, 2018

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

Law Office of Jason Tenenbaum, P.C. (Jason Tenenbaum of counsel), for appellant. Pinczewski and Shpelfogel, P.C. (Damin J. Toell 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 January 6, 2017. The order denied defendant’s motion, pursuant to CPLR 4404 (b), to set aside a decision of the Civil Court made after a nonjury trial.

ORDERED that the order is reversed, without costs, defendant’s motion, pursuant to CPLR 4404 (b), to set aside the decision of the Civil Court is granted, and the matter is remitted to the Civil Court for a new trial limited to the issues of medical necessity and billing pursuant to the workers’ compensation fee schedule.

In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, the parties stipulated that the only issues for trial would be whether the services that had been rendered were medically necessary and whether plaintiff had properly billed in accordance with the workers’ compensation fee schedule, as all elements of plaintiff’s case had been established and defendant had timely denied the claim. At a nonjury trial, plaintiff’s attorney moved to preclude defendant’s expert witnesses on the grounds that disclosure of those witnesses was untimely and that disclosure had been made by facsimile transmission, a method of notice which plaintiff’s counsel had previously rejected. Defense counsel argued that there would be no prejudice to plaintiff as a result of the testimony, and counsel advised the court that his witnesses were present to testify. On February 9, 2016, the Civil Court granted plaintiff’s motion to preclude the witnesses, stating that it did not think that prejudice was an issue but “we have to move these cases timely.” On February 24, 2016, defendant timely moved, pursuant to CPLR 4404 (b), to set aside the decision, and plaintiff opposed the motion. By order entered January 6, 2017, the Civil Court denied defendant’s motion.

“CPLR 3101 (d) (1) 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 [*2]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]; see Burbige v Siben & Ferber, 115 AD3d 632, 633 [2014]). While defendant’s service of the expert witness notices at issue should have been more prompt (see Cutsogeorge, 264 AD2d at 754) and made by mail as requested by plaintiff, the Civil Court erred in precluding defendant’s expert witnesses, as the record clearly demonstrates that there was no showing by plaintiff that defendant had intentionally or willfully failed to promptly disclose, or that plaintiff had been prejudiced.

Accordingly, the order is reversed, defendant’s motion to set aside the decision of the Civil Court is granted, and the matter is remitted to the Civil Court for a new trial limited to the issues of medical necessity and billing pursuant to the workers’ compensation fee schedule.

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

Law Office of Goldstein & Flecker (Lawrence J. Chanice of counsel), for appellant. Law Offices of Ilona Finkelshteyn, P.C., for respondent (no brief filed).

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Larry Love, J.), entered January 31, 2017. 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.

Plaintiff commenced this action to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits on November 10, 2009. Defendant interposed an answer on December 8, 2009. On August 5, 2016, defendant served plaintiff’s attorney with a 90-day written demand pursuant to CPLR 3216 (b) (3), which was received on August 8, 2016. By notice of motion dated December 21, 2016, defendant moved, pursuant to CPLR 3216, to dismiss the complaint, and plaintiff did not oppose the motion. On January 13, 2017, 158 days after it had received defendant’s demand, plaintiff filed a notice of trial. Defendant appeals from so much of an order of the Civil Court as denied its motion to dismiss.

Upon receiving a 90-day demand, a plaintiff must either comply with the demand by 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 filed a notice of trial more than 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]; Felix, 52 AD3d [*2]653; A.M. Med., P.C., 22 Misc 3d 43). However, plaintiff failed to oppose defendant’s motion. Consequently, it failed to demonstrate any ground to deny defendant’s motion (see Wilson v Nembhardt, 180 AD2d 731, 734 [1992] [“it was an improvident exercise of discretion for the court to excuse the plaintiff’s attorney’s failure to oppose the appellant’s motion to dismiss, a failure rendered all the more inexcusable in that it occurred while the plaintiff’s attorney was already in default in properly complying with the outstanding 90-day notice”]).

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

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