Back when DJ’s roamed the earth

Ultimate Health Prods., Inc. v American Tr. Ins. Co., 2014 NY Slip Op 51321(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2014)

Good job to my colleague and friend James Sullivan on this one.

“Ultimate Health Products, Inc. (Ultimate Health) commenced this action in the Civil Court, Queens County, to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits for supplies provided to its assignor as a result of injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident. While this no-fault action was pending, defendant, American Transit Insurance Company (American Transit), commenced a declaratory judgment action in Supreme Court, New York County, against Ultimate Health and its assignor, among others, alleging that the assignor had breached the terms of the insurance policy by failing to appear for duly scheduled examinations under oath and that, as a result, American Transit is not obligated to pay any claims for first-party no-fault benefits submitted by Ultimate Health as assignee of Carlos Martinez arising from the car accident in question. In December of 2011, plaintiff moved in the Civil Court for summary judgment. On May 15, 2012, the Supreme Court awarded American Transit a declaratory judgment on default. American Transit subsequently cross-moved in the Civil Court, pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (5), to dismiss plaintiff’s action, contending that this action is barred by virtue of the declaratory judgment. Plaintiff opposed defendant’s cross motion and now appeals from an order of the Civil Court, entered January 18, 2013, which implicitly denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and granted defendant’s cross motion dismissing the complaint.

The Supreme Court determined that Ultimate Health’s assignor was not an eligible injured person entitled to no-fault benefits under the applicable policy, and that American Transit was not obligated to pay claims submitted by Ultimate Health as assignee of Carlos Martinez in any current or future proceedings arising under that policy from the car accident in question. In light of the declaratory judgment, the present action is barred under the doctrine of res judicata (see EBM Med. Health Care, P.C. v Republic W. Ins., 38 Misc 3d 1 ; Ava Acupuncture, P.C. v NY Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 34 Misc 3d 149, 2012 NY Slip Op 50233 ; SZ Med., P.C. v Erie Ins. [*2]Co., 24 Misc 3d 126, 2009 NY Slip Op 51221 ), as any judgment in favor of plaintiff in this action would destroy or impair rights or interests established by the Supreme Court declaratory judgment (see Schuylkill Fuel Corp. v Nieberg Realty Corp., 250 NY 304, 306-307 ; SZ Med., P.C. v Erie Ins. Co., 24 Misc 3d 126, 2009 NY Slip Op 51221). Plaintiff’s remaining arguments lack merit or were not preserved for appeal.”

This is from back when the good guys had the stage and providers had to earn their money.

Related Articles

• Supplemental affirmation on a DJ case acceptable and res judicata mandates dismissal of complaint
• Walking out of an EUO leads to a disclaimer and a whole lot more
• Understanding Res Judicata in No-Fault Insurance: When Past Decisions Bar Future Claims
• Collateral estoppel in the declaratory judgment action does not necessarily apply to the underlying no-fault action
• New York No-Fault Insurance Law

Legal Update (February 2026): Since this 2014 decision, there have been potential changes to declaratory judgment procedures and res judicata applications in no-fault insurance cases, particularly regarding examination under oath requirements and default judgment standards. Additionally, CPLR 3211 motion practice and Civil Court/Supreme Court coordination procedures may have been subject to regulatory or statutory amendments. Practitioners should verify current provisions regarding declaratory judgment timing, default procedures, and inter-court case coordination in no-fault matters.