Key Takeaway
Court dismisses carrier's declaratory judgment lacking Manhattan nexus when arbitration demands filed, highlighting jurisdictional issues in no-fault cases.
This article is part of our ongoing declaratory judgments coverage, with 42 published articles analyzing declaratory judgments 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.
Permanent Gen. Assur. Co. v Thomas, 2016 NY Slip Op 30071(U)(Sup. Ct. NY. Co. 2016)
I put this DJ on the same category as the legal geniuses who brought us “Matter of Allstate Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v New Way Massage Therapy P.C.” I will explain my rationale. Thomas involved a 2011 motor vehicle accident and my reading of the case file showed that only active claims involved the MUA’s that the upstate facilities let by Dr. Tracy the third and his minions. All of the other “defendants” were dead claims. Phantom claims as of 2016. Thus, the DJ centered around 3 or 4 claims where arbitration demands were made. I get where the carrier was going and what defense counsel recommended or sold. But what bugged me is that the DJ was brought in Manhattan. There was no link to Manhattan. The carrier does not even have an office in New York (although they are opening one) and the treatment was in Erie Country. It was an obnoxious DJ in that there was no downstate nexus. The result, besides making DJ’s more difficult to bring, represented a sense of poetic justice you could say.
The holding? Well if there is an arbitration that is brought, the DJ should be dismissed. I would note while there are a few trial court cases that say otherwise, I did not see any cited in the insurance carrier’s papers. The other issue I would note when reviewing the DJ is that 11 NYCRR 3.5(d) is sui generis to each bill. One cannot produce a bill that complies with 3.5(d) (a timely bill from Scott Croce was provided) and say the DJ is timely to each provider and each bill.
Happy President’s day.
Legal Significance
The court’s dismissal of this declaratory judgment action establishes important limitations on insurers’ ability to forum shop in no-fault litigation. While declaratory judgment actions serve legitimate purposes when genuine coverage questions exist and litigation has not yet commenced, they become vehicles for abuse when filed in improper venues merely to gain perceived tactical advantages.
The decision reaffirms that once arbitration demands have been filed, declaratory judgment actions addressing the same coverage issues should generally be dismissed. Arbitration is the statutorily prescribed forum for resolving no-fault payment disputes, and allowing parallel declaratory judgment proceedings would undermine the efficiency that the arbitration system was designed to achieve.
Jason Tenenbaum’s observation that “there was no link to Manhattan” cuts to the heart of the jurisdictional problem. New York’s venue rules exist to ensure that cases are heard in locations with logical connections to the parties or events. When upstate claims involving upstate providers and upstate accidents are filed in Manhattan, it suggests an improper motive rather than legitimate forum selection.
The decision also addresses an important procedural point regarding 11 NYCRR § 65-3.5(d), which requires insurers to provide timely notice of denials within 30 days of receipt of a “proof of claim.” As Jason Tenenbaum notes, this regulation is “sui generis to each bill”—compliance for one bill does not establish compliance for all bills. Carriers cannot use a single timely denial to bootstrap jurisdiction over multiple unrelated claims.
Practical Implications
For insurance carriers, this decision serves as a cautionary tale about the risks of filing declaratory judgment actions that lack proper venue or practical necessity. Before filing, carriers should ensure: (1) a genuine coverage dispute exists; (2) the chosen venue has a legitimate nexus to the case; (3) arbitration has not already been initiated on the same claims; and (4) the action addresses all defendants, not a mix of active and dead claims.
For healthcare providers, the decision provides ammunition to challenge declaratory judgment actions that appear to be filed for improper purposes. Providers should scrutinize whether the carrier has any connection to the chosen venue and whether arbitration demands have already been filed. If so, a motion to dismiss may be appropriate.
The case also illustrates the importance of judicial resources and respect for the court system. Filing actions that include numerous “phantom claims” alongside a handful of active disputes wastes court time and demonstrates a lack of care in pleading. Courts are increasingly intolerant of such practices.
Related Articles
- New York Declaratory Judgment Actions: Supreme Court vs Civil Court Jurisdiction Issues
- Understanding Article 75 Proceedings: You Cannot Backdoor Master Awards Through Declaratory Judgment
- Expansion of Mallela
- Supplemental affirmation on a DJ case acceptable and res judicata mandates dismissal of complaint
- DJ went south
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
Declaratory Judgment Practice in New York
Declaratory judgment proceedings provide a mechanism for parties to obtain binding judicial determinations of their legal rights and obligations. In insurance litigation, declaratory judgments are commonly sought to resolve disputes over policy coverage, fraud allegations, and the enforceability of policy conditions. These articles analyze declaratory judgment procedure, the standards courts apply, and the strategic implications of seeking or defending against declaratory relief in New York insurance cases.
42 published articles in Declaratory Judgments
Keep Reading
More Declaratory Judgments Analysis
EUO Declaratory Judgment
Court rules on EUO no-show case involving mailing issues, mutual rescheduling disputes, and provider's untimely bill submissions in no-fault insurance litigation.
May 14, 2020The Master Cheng
Court ruling clarifies that Supreme Court cannot vacate Civil Court judgments but can stay enforcement - key jurisdiction limits in NY declaratory actions.
Apr 27, 2020EUO no-show: Declaratory Judgment substantiated
New York court upholds insurer's declaratory judgment after claimant's EUO no-show, confirming proper notice requirements and compliance with scheduling regulations.
Jan 26, 2018Expansion of Mallela
Second Department expands Mallela doctrine in Liberty Mutual v Raia Medical, addressing physician billing rights when practice owner lacks specific certification skills
Jun 23, 2016Supplemental affirmation on a DJ case acceptable and res judicata mandates dismissal of complaint
Court rules supplemental affirmation acceptable in DJ case and res judicata mandates dismissal of no-fault complaint after prior declaratory judgment ruling.
Aug 29, 2014New York Declaratory Judgment Actions: Supreme Court vs Civil Court Jurisdiction Issues
Learn about NY declaratory judgment actions and jurisdictional issues between courts. Expert analysis of SS Medical Care case. Call 516-750-0595.
Aug 10, 2019Common Questions
Frequently Asked Questions
What is a declaratory judgment action in no-fault insurance?
A declaratory judgment action is a lawsuit asking the court to determine the rights and obligations of the parties — typically whether an insurer has a duty to pay no-fault benefits. Insurers often file these actions to establish they have no obligation to pay, citing policy exclusions, fraud, or coverage disputes.
When do insurers file declaratory judgment actions?
Insurers commonly file declaratory judgment actions when they believe a policy is void due to material misrepresentation, the loss was intentional, or there is a coverage dispute. Under NY Insurance Law, the insurer must demonstrate a justiciable controversy and typically seeks a declaration that it has no duty to indemnify or defend.
How does a declaratory judgment affect my no-fault benefits?
If the court rules in the insurer's favor, your no-fault benefits may be terminated. However, if the insurer fails to meet its burden of proof or did not timely commence the action, the court may rule in your favor, requiring the insurer to continue paying benefits. Having experienced counsel is critical in these proceedings.
Was this article helpful?
About the Author
Jason Tenenbaum, Esq.
Jason Tenenbaum is the founding attorney of the Law Office of Jason Tenenbaum, P.C., headquartered at 326 Walt Whitman Road, Suite C, Huntington Station, New York 11746. With over 24 years of experience since founding the firm in 2002, Jason has written more than 1,000 appeals, handled over 100,000 no-fault insurance cases, and recovered over $100 million for clients across Long Island, Nassau County, Suffolk County, Queens, Brooklyn, Manhattan, the Bronx, and Staten Island. He is one of the few attorneys in the state who both writes his own appellate briefs and tries his own cases.
Jason is admitted to practice in New York, New Jersey, Florida, Texas, Georgia, and Michigan state courts, as well as multiple federal courts. His 2,353+ published legal articles analyzing New York case law, procedural developments, and litigation strategy make him one of the most prolific legal commentators in the state. He earned his Juris Doctor from Syracuse University College of Law.
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 declaratory judgments 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.