Shell game

City Dental Servs., P.C. v Country Wide Ins. Co.,2013 NY Slip Op 50474(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2013)

“In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, plaintiff moved for summary judgment. When defendant attempted to file opposing papers almost two months after their stipulated due date, the Civil Court (Carolyn E. Wade, J.) rejected defendant’s papers and, by order entered June 11, 2010, granted plaintiff’s motion on default. Thereafter, defendant moved pursuant to CPLR 2221 (d) and (e), for leave to “renew and reargue” its [*2]opposition to plaintiff’s prior motion for summary judgment and, upon renewal and reargument, to deny plaintiff’s motion. Defendant’s motion also sought to vacate the June 11, 2010 order pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a) (1). By order entered April 27, 2011, the Civil Court (Johnny Lee Baynes, J.) denied the branches of defendant’s motion seeking leave to renew and reargue. The order did not address the branch of defendant’s motion seeking to vacate the June 11, 2010 order.

The appeal from so much of the order as denied the branch of defendant’s motion seeking leave to “reargue” must be dismissed, as no appeal lies from an order denying reargument (see Barrafato v Franzitta, 308 AD2d 468 ).

The denial of the branch of defendant’s motion seeking leave to “renew” its “opposition” to plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment was proper since defendant had defaulted in opposing plaintiff’s motion and, thus, defendant’s remedy was to seek to vacate the default order. Finally, the branch of plaintiff’s motion seeking, pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a) (1), to vacate the June 11, 2010 order was not addressed in the order appealed from and, therefore, remains pending and undecided (see Creese v Long Is. Light. Co., 98 AD3d 708, 711 ; Katz v Katz, 68 AD2d 536 ).”

So, the court punted.  Now what happens?  Does the motion have to be remade now?  Also, was their prejudice because of the late opposition?  Or, is this the Civil Kings briefing schedule shell game that furthers the “gotcha” mentality that no-fault has engendered over the last 15 years?

Related Articles

• A default that is more than meets the eyes
• Why Law Office Failure Excuses Must Be Detailed to Open Default Judgments in NY
• CPLR 5015(a)(1) in New York Personal Injury Cases: Setting Aside Default Judgments
• Trial De Novo Default Judgment NY – No-Fault Insurance Requirements
• New York No-Fault Insurance Law

Legal Update (February 2026): Since this 2013 post, CPLR provisions regarding motion practice, default judgments, and renewal/reargument standards may have been amended through legislative changes or modified through evolving case law interpretations. Practitioners should verify current CPLR 2221 and 5015 requirements, particularly regarding timing and procedural standards for renewal motions and default judgment vacatur in no-fault insurance litigation.