Key Takeaway
NY court rules independent contractor defense sufficient for CPLR 3211(a)(7) dismissal when claim forms identify services rendered by contractor
Health & Endurance Med., P.C. v Travelers Prop. Cas. Ins. Co., 2011 NY Slip Op 51120(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2011)
Contrary to plaintiff’s contention, defendant was permitted to move to dismiss on the ground that the complaint fails to state a cause of action notwithstanding defendant’s service of an answer (CPLR 3211 ; ). Plaintiff’s claim forms state that the services at issue were rendered by an independent contractor. Where services are rendered by an independent contractor, the independent contractor is the provider entitled to the payment of the assigned first-party no-fault benefits (see Rockaway Blvd. Med. P.C. v Progressive Ins., 9 Misc 3d 52 ). This court has held that a statement in a claim form, that the services were provided by an independent contractor, may not be corrected once litigation has commenced, even if the statement was erroneous (A.M. Med. Servs., P.C. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 22 Misc 3d 70 ). Thus, defendant has conclusively demonstrated that plaintiff is not the provider entitled to payment of the assigned first-party no-fault benefits (A.M. Med. Servs., P.C., 22 Misc 3d 70; Rockaway [*2]
Blvd. Med. P.C., 9 Misc 3d 52), and defendant’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action should have been granted (see CPLR 3211 )”
Related Articles
- The first application of the new precludable independent contractor rule
- Motion seeking leave to amend the answer to seek affirmative defense of lack of standing is proper
- Are all of the cards stacked in Allstate’s favor?
- Understanding Legal Standing in New York: A Comprehensive Guide for Long Island and NYC Residents
Legal Update (February 2026): Since this 2011 decision, New York courts have continued to refine the application of independent contractor defenses in no-fault cases, and procedural rules under CPLR 3211 may have been subject to amendments or clarifications through subsequent case law and regulatory updates. Practitioners should verify current provisions regarding standing requirements and the ability to correct claim form designations in no-fault litigation.
