A very interesting 5102(d) case July 20, 2020

Guzman v Cruz, 2020 NY Slip Op 03980 (1st Dept. 2020)

“In opposition, plaintiff raised issues of fact as to his cervical spine claim through the affirmed report of his radiologist, who found multiple bulging discs, and his treating physician, who provided evidence of limited range of motion about a week after the accident and four years later and opined that the cervical spine conditions were causally related to the accident. Since plaintiff’s own medical records did not reveal any degenerative conditions in his spine, he was not required to submit evidence from a medical expert detailing why degenerative conditions were not the cause of the reported symptoms”


“Although plaintiff did not initially complain to his doctor about his shoulder, he testified that his shoulder was bruised after the accident and then sought treatment within a month when pain developed. Such delay does not require a finding of lack of a causal connection, but rather presents an issue of fact”

Conditional Order of preclusion substitutes for willfulness July 20, 2020

Center Sheet Metal v Cannon Design, Inc., 2020 NY Slip Op 04010 (1st Dept. 2020)

“Plaintiffs violated the court’s third conditional order of preclusion by failing to produce a witness for Aspen’s scheduled deposition, and failed to demonstrate either a reasonable excuse for their failure to comply or a meritorious claim.”

Contrary to plaintiffs’ argument, the court was not required to find that their failure to comply was willful (Keller v Merchant Capital Portfolios, LLC, 103 AD3d 532, 533 [1st Dept 2013]).

Motion for leave to enter a default insufficient June 30, 2020

Freedom Chiropractic, P.C. v 21st Century Ins. Co., 2020 NY Slip Op 50686(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2020)

“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]). “

My question here is since a party in default (unless they previously appeared) is not legally entitled to a notice of an application for a default (whether made to the court or clerk), is this decision correct?

Guarantee the argument is not preserved and the Court did nit have to reach it.

Not attending an EUO at your own peril June 30, 2020

Accelerated Med. Supply, Inc. v Ameriprise Ins. Co., 2020 NY Slip Op 50741(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2020)

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”.


I mean in the scheme of things, if you decide not to attend an EUO, you really do so at your own peril.

Pa retroactive rescission June 30, 2020

Monroe v Omni Indem. Co., 2020 NY Slip Op 50731(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2020)

“Contrary to plaintiff’s contention, the affidavit of defendant’s litigation representative was sufficient to demonstrate that defendant had mailed the rescission letter and refund check to the insured/assignor. As defendant set forth facts showing that it had rescinded the insurance policy ab initio in accordance with Pennsylvania law, defendant established its prima facie entitlement to summary judgment dismissing the complaint, which showing plaintiff failed to rebut (see Healthway Med. Care, P.C. v Infinity Group, 54 Misc 3d 132[A], 2017 NY Slip Op 50042[U]). Plaintiff’s contention that defendant had to prove that a material false statement had been made by the insured lacks merit. This court has “held that an insurer need not establish the underlying reasons for the retroactive rescission of the policy, but rather has the burden of establishing that it complied with the law of the sister state which permits retroactive rescission

My assumption above is that is the law of the sister state requires the carrier to prove that they had the right to rescind the policy, then that inquiry would be riper for determination by our court?

In fact, I think it is a valid assumption:

Parisien v Omni Indem. Co., 2020 NY Slip Op 50729(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2020)

“The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has held, however, that while an automobile insurance policy may be retroactively rescinded as to an insured who has made a material misrepresentation, the policy may not be retroactively rescinded [*2]with respect to third parties “who are innocent of trickery, and injured through no fault of their own”: