Key Takeaway
Ultimate Health Prods. v American Tr. Ins. Co. case analysis on declaratory judgment actions, res judicata, and no-fault insurance coverage disputes in New York courts.
This article is part of our ongoing coverage coverage, with 370 published articles analyzing coverage issues across New York State. Attorney Jason Tenenbaum brings 24+ years of hands-on experience to this analysis, drawing from his work on more than 1,000 appeals, over 100,000 no-fault cases, and recovery of over $100 million for clients throughout Nassau County, Suffolk County, Queens, Brooklyn, Manhattan, and the Bronx. For personalized legal advice about how these principles apply to your specific situation, contact our Long Island office at (516) 750-0595 for a free consultation.
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. 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.”
Free Consultation · No Fee Unless We Win
Does this apply to your situation?
Every case is different. Get a free, confidential case review from an experienced attorney who can tell you exactly where you stand.
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.
Legal Context
Why This Matters for Your Case
New York law is among the most complex and nuanced in the country, with distinct procedural rules, substantive doctrines, and court systems that differ significantly from other jurisdictions. The Civil Practice Law and Rules (CPLR) governs every stage of civil litigation, from service of process through trial and appeal. The Appellate Division, Appellate Term, and Court of Appeals create a rich and ever-evolving body of case law that practitioners must follow.
Attorney Jason Tenenbaum has practiced across these areas for over 24 years, writing more than 1,000 appellate briefs and publishing over 2,353 legal articles that attorneys and clients rely on for guidance. The analysis in this article reflects real courtroom experience — from motion practice in Civil Court and Supreme Court to oral arguments before the Appellate Division — and a deep understanding of how New York courts actually apply the law in practice.
About This Topic
Insurance Coverage Issues in New York
Coverage disputes determine whether an insurance policy provides benefits for a particular claim. In the no-fault context, coverage questions involve policy inception, named insured status, vehicle registration requirements, priority of coverage among multiple insurers, and the applicability of exclusions. These articles examine how New York courts resolve coverage disputes, the burden of proof on coverage defenses, and the interplay between regulatory requirements and policy language.
370 published articles in Coverage
Keep Reading
More Coverage Analysis
How to Talk to a Judge in New York: What to Say, What to Avoid, and How to Present Yourself
Address the judge as 'Your Honor,' stand when you speak, wait to be recognized, and keep answers short and honest. A Long Island trial lawyer explains.
Feb 24, 2026
CPLR § 2106 Amendment Eliminates Affidavit Notarization Requirement: What This Means for New York Litigation
New York's CPLR 2106 permits affirmations in place of many sworn documents. See the 2024 and 2025 changes, exceptions, and historical case notes.
Feb 18, 2026
Exhaustion of benefits – strict priority of payment regimen is somewhat abrogaded
NY court ruling on no-fault insurance policy exhaustion defense when claims are properly denied but coverage limits reached through arbitration awards to other providers.
Apr 17, 2015
Use, Operation and proximate cause liberally construed to afford coverage
New York no-fault insurance coverage expanded through liberal construction of use, operation and proximate cause requirements in rescue injury case.
May 14, 2013
Use and Operation – Should the SUM endorsement be read differently than the no-fault endorsement?
Analysis of use and operation coverage differences between SUM endorsement and no-fault PIP endorsement under New York insurance law.
Jul 26, 2010
The hourly attorney fee
Court rules hourly attorney fees only allowed for specifically enumerated NF-10 form policy issues in NY no-fault insurance cases, restricting fee recovery scope.
Apr 27, 2020Was this article helpful?
Disclaimer: This article is published by the Law Office of Jason Tenenbaum, P.C. for informational and educational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice, and no attorney-client relationship is formed by reading this content. The legal principles discussed may not apply to your specific situation, and the law may have changed since this article was last updated.
New York law varies by jurisdiction — court decisions in one Appellate Division department may not be followed in another, and local court rules in Nassau County Supreme Court differ from those in Suffolk County Supreme Court, Kings County Civil Court, or Queens County Supreme Court. The Appellate Division, Second Department (which covers Long Island, Brooklyn, Queens, and Staten Island) and the Appellate Term (which hears appeals from lower courts) each have distinct procedural requirements and precedents that affect litigation strategy.
If you need legal help with a coverage matter, contact our office at (516) 750-0595 for a free consultation. We serve clients throughout Long Island (Huntington, Babylon, Islip, Brookhaven, Smithtown, Riverhead, Southampton, East Hampton), Nassau County (Hempstead, Garden City, Mineola, Great Neck, Manhasset, Freeport, Long Beach, Rockville Centre, Valley Stream, Westbury, Hicksville, Massapequa), Suffolk County (Hauppauge, Deer Park, Bay Shore, Central Islip, Patchogue, Brentwood), Queens, Brooklyn, Manhattan, the Bronx, Staten Island, and Westchester County. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
