Blog

The lack of value of a notice of appearance November 3, 2019

JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. v Jacobowitz, 2019 NY Slip Op 07773 (2d Dept. 2019)

Remember: when you answer, the CPLR gives you 60 days to move to dismiss on personal jurisdiction or you are out of the box. Filing a notice of appearance sans answer will not subvert the CPLR. It is a cute strategy but the Courts frown on lack of personal jurisdiction application.

” It is immaterial that the notice of appearance, in addition to requesting that all papers in the action be served on the defendants’ counsel, stated that “[t]he Defendants do not waive any jurisdictional defenses by reason of the within appearance.” This language is not a talisman to protect the defendants from their failure to take timely and appropriate action to preserve their defense of lack of personal jurisdiction. The defendants did not move to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against them on the ground of lack of personal jurisdiction until January 2016, more than 10 months after filing the notice of appearance. Under these circumstances, the defendants waived any claim that the Supreme Court lacked personal jurisdiction over them in this action.”

Mailing November 3, 2019

M&T Bank v Biordi, 2019 NY Slip Op 07775 (2d Dept. 2019)

The irony – and I have commented on this before – is that the great Appellate Term mailing debates have transitioned to Appellate Division mailing debates as RPAPL 1304 has spawned an incredible amount of litigation in the mortgage context.

“Attached to the affidavit were copies of 90-day notices, bearing indicia of mailing by certified mail, but not first-class mail, and bearing no postmark or date of mailing. The plaintiff additionally submitted an affidavit of mailing of an Assistant Treasurer/Manager of Hudson City, who attested to the mailing of 90-day notices by first-class and certified mail, but did not attest to personal knowledge of the mailing and did not set forth any details regarding Hudson City’s mailing practices or procedures. Since the plaintiff failed to provide evidence of the actual mailing, or evidence of a standard office mailing procedure designed to ensure that items are properly addressed and mailed, sworn to by someone with personal knowledge of the procedure, the plaintiff failed to establish its strict compliance with RPAPL 1304 “

Additional Verification October 26, 2019

New Horizon Surgical Ctr., LLC v Travelers Ins. Co., 2019 NY Slip Op 51690(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2019)

“Contrary to plaintiff’s contention, defendant was not required to pay or deny plaintiff’s claims upon receipt of a “partial response” to defendant’s verification requests (see 11 NYCRR [*2]65-3.8 [a] [1]; [b] [3]; New York & Presbyt. Hosp. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 5 AD3d 568, 570 [2004] [“A claim need not be paid or denied until all demanded verification is provided”]).”

Two thoughts here. First, how do we justify the Rybak general compliance affidavit? Second, how do arbitrators still hold in the general sense that an objection letter or “communication” must be responded in order to continue the toll. The Court is clear – provide it or lose.

I can see two exceptions to the second point. First, a response that says we do not have it is a complete response. Second, a response that objects because the sought after verification is palpable improper. I must assume this case fits under exception two. Maybe the Court found the demand reasonable? The problem is like the definition of medical necessity, the appeals courts have not given us guidance of where the reasonableness line (if it even exists) is drawn.

An interesting MVAIC issue October 26, 2019

I usually do not focus or discuss too many MVAIC cases, mainly because they do not terribly interest me and the Second Department has held that every distinctive issue involving MVAIC is either a coverage defense or an additional element of Plaintiff’s prima facie case. The First Department holds that every “condition precedent” is a defense and does not require remedies to be exhausted as a condition precedent. Pardon me for not focusing on MVAIC issues – do not think less of me.

This case interested me due to one sentence:

“The filing of a timely affidavit providing the MVAIC with notice of intention to file a claim is ‘a condition precedent to the right to apply for payment from [MVAIC].’ Compliance with the statutory requirement of timely filing a notice of claim must be established in order to demonstrate that the claimant is a ‘covered person,’ within the meaning of the statute, entitled to recover no-fault benefits from the MVAIC” (Avicenna Med. Arts, P.L.L.C. v MVAIC, 53 Misc 3d 142[A], 2016 NY Slip Op 51535[U], 1 [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2016] [citation omitted]; see Insurance Law §§ 5208 [a] [1], [3]; 5221 [b] [2]). As plaintiff did not establish that such an affidavit had been submitted to MVAIC, plaintiff failed to establish its prima facie case (see Insurance Law §§ 5202 [b]; 5208, 5221 [b] [2]). In light of the foregoing, we reach no other issue.”

Same case in Civil Bronx: Affirmed with $30 costs. By the way, we have seen the bolded comment before in prior cases. But I think the Court is wrong here. What do I know?

Keep beating a dead horse… It is not coming back to life October 26, 2019

Gentlecare Ambulatory Anesthesia Servs. v GEICO Ins. Co., 2019 NY Slip Op 51684(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2019)

“Furthermore, as this court has repeatedly stated, defendant was not required to set forth objective reasons for requesting EUOs in order to establish its prima facie entitlement to summary judgment, as an insurer need only demonstrate “as a matter of law that it twice duly demanded an [EUO] from the [*2][provider] . . . that the [provider] twice failed to appear, and that the [insurer] issued a timely denial of the claim[]” (Interboro Ins. Co. v Clennon, 113 AD3d 596, 597 [2014]….”

If you feel the Court is wrong and you know what the outcome will be, you are best to file an action is a different Department or in a federal court and hope for a different outcome. This appears to be a foolish use of resources in everyone’s part.