No Fault Defender – A Defense Attorney's Perspective on New York No-Fault Law

Archive for July 19th, 2010

Finocchiaro v Wall St. Mail Pk-Up Serv., Inc., 2010 NY Slip Op 51255(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2010)

I am including this case today, because the Appellate Term (see the bold below) has shared with us something that might have come from a spy novel: “While leave to amend a bill of particulars is ordinarily freely granted in the absence of prejudice and surprise, when leave to amend is sought on the eve of trial, judicial discretion should be exercised in a discreet, circumspect, prudent and cautious manner (see Kyong Hi Wohn v County of Suffolk, 237 AD2d 412 [1997]).”

New York Merchants Protective Co., Inc. v Costanza, 2010 NY Slip Op 51253(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2010)

“Plaintiff commenced this action to recover damages for breach of contract. Defendants appeared and answered, and the matter was adjourned to June 2007. The case was then adjourned and marked final for trial on October 24, 2007. Thereafter, the complaint was dismissed with prejudice….”

“Under the facts presented herein, the Civil Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying plaintiff’s request for an adjournment and, therefore, properly dismissed the complaint with prejudice.”

Very interesting.  I am not sure I have seen this one before.

SEE COMMENTS FROM DAMIN TOELL, ESQ. – for further explanation of this case.

Kipor Medicine, P.C. v GEICO, 2010 NY Slip Op 51247(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2010)

The branch of defendant’s motion seeking consolidation should have been denied since defendant failed to demonstrate that the actions it sought to consolidate had common questions of law or fact (see CPLR 602 [a]; S & B Neurocare, P.C. v GEICO Ins. Co., 20 Misc 3d 132[A], 2008 NY Slip Op 51450[U] [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2008]). In addition, the branch of [*2]defendant’s motion seeking leave to amend the answer should have been denied since defendant’s papers presented no evidence that the proposed amendment might have merit (see CPLR 3025 [b]; Ingrami v Rovner, 45 AD3d 806, 808 [2007]). Defendant sought to amend its answer to assert that plaintiff’s certificate of incorporation had been revoked following the surrender, in April 2006, of the medical license of plaintiff’s sole shareholder. Plaintiff, however, is entitled to wind up its affairs and seek to recover no-fault benefits for the services it rendered to its assignors prior to April 2006 (see e.g. A.B. Med. Servs., PLLC v Travelers Indem. Co., 26 Misc 3d 69 [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2009]). Defendant has not demonstrated that the facts herein are akin to a fraudulent incorporation (see State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v Mallela, 4 NY3d 313 [2005]).

Moreover, since defendant failed to submit an affidavit specifying that any unusual or unanticipated conditions had developed after the notice of trial had been filed which made it necessary for defendant to engage in further pretrial proceedings (see Uniform Rules for New York City Civ Ct [22 NYCRR] § 208.17 [d]; S & B Neurocare, P.C. v GEICO Ins. Co., 20 Misc 3d 132[A], 2008 NY Slip Op 51450[U]), the branch of defendant’s motion seeking to compel plaintiff to respond to discovery demands and produce its sole shareholder for an examination before trial should also have been denied.

Two points.  One, consolidation motions seem to have the same rules as severance motions.  While it is easy to sever, it is equally as difficult to consolidate.  Two, belated discovery following the filing of a notice of trial is shunned upon.

A better question is assuming the facts as presented by Justice Golia are accurate (see below), why would anybody prosecute this type of action.  Does this make the law firm prosecuting this action a co-conspirator or accessory after the fact to a fraud?  I am not sure -

“Unlike the majority, I do not find that defendant failed to demonstrate that the actions it sought to consolidate had common questions of law or fact,” or that defendant’s papers presented no evidence that the proposed amendment might have merit,” or that additional discovery should also have been denied.” Notwithstanding the foregoing, I agree with the majority in the ultimate result in that defendant waited nearly two years from the time it knew that Dr. Meisher had committed insurance fraud and was losing his medical license. Indeed, it was this very defendant, GEICO, that was the named victim” in the case to which Dr. Meisher entered his guilty plea. I can find no valid reason for this particular defendant to have ignored these concerns for such an extended period of time. Certainly, if defendant had submitted the same motion within a reasonable time, I would have voted to affirm the order of the Civil Court.”