Key Takeaway
Court allows judicial notice of Supreme Court order in reply brief, finding res judicata bars no-fault provider's claims based on prior declaratory judgment action.
This article is part of our ongoing res judicata coverage, with 21 published articles analyzing res judicata 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.
K.O. Med., P.C. v Mercury Cas. Co., 2017 NY Slip Op 51614(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2017)
(1) “In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that plaintiff’s assignor had failed to appear for duly scheduled examinations under oath (EUOs). Plaintiff opposed the motion and cross-moved for summary judgment. Defendant appeals from an order of the Civil Court, entered July 11, 2014, which denied defendant’s motion, finding that defendant had failed to establish the assignor’s nonappearances at the EUOs, and granted plaintiff’s cross motion. On the appeal, defendant has annexed to its reply brief a December 4, 2014 short-form order of the Supreme Court, Bronx County, in a declaratory judgment action and asks this court to take judicial notice of that order, in which the Supreme Court granted on default a judgment declaring that plaintiff herein and its assignor, among others, are not entitled to no-fault coverage for the accident that is at issue in the case at bar.”
(2) Contrary to the determination of the Civil Court, plaintiff failed to establish its prima facie entitlement to summary judgment, as plaintiff’s cross-moving papers failed to establish either that defendant had not denied the claims within the requisite 30-day period or that defendant had issued timely denial of claim forms that were conclusory, vague or without merit as a matter of law ” (failure to satisfy the post 2010 formulation for summary judgment prima facie)
(3) “Ordinarily, a reversal of this portion of the Civil Court’s order, standing alone, would result in the matter being remitted to the Civil Court for all further proceedings. However, as a court may take judicial notice “on appeal, of reliable documents, the existence and accuracy of which are not disputed” and, generally, “of matters of public record” (Brandes Meat Corp. v Cromer, 146 AD2d 666, 667 ; see Headley v New York City Tr. Auth., 100 AD3d 700 ), this court, having afforded plaintiff an opportunity to address the propriety of the Supreme Court’s short-form order, and as the challenges that plaintiff has raised thereto lack merit, declines to remit the matter and, in the interest of judicial economy, takes judicial notice of the Supreme Court’s superseding order, entered October 17, 2016, pursuant to the short-form order, granting defendant’s motion for the entry of a default judgment and declaring that plaintiff herein and its assignor are not entitled to no-fault benefits arising out of the accident at issue (see Headley, 100 AD3d at 701_; Brandes Meat Corp._, 146 AD2d at 667). As the Supreme Court’s order bars any subsequent proceeding between the parties in the Civil Court under the doctrine of res judicata (see Schuylkill Fuel Corp. v Nieberg Realty Corp., 250 NY 304, 306-307 ; Flushing Traditional Acupuncture, P.C. v Kemper Ins. Co., 42 Misc 3d 133, 2014 NY Slip Op 50052 ; EBM Med. Health Care, P.C. v Republic W. Ins., 38 Misc 3d 1 ), it sufficiently appears that a party other than plaintiff is entitled to summary judgment (see CPLR 3212 ). Accordingly, upon reversing the portion of the Civil Court’s order which granted plaintiff’s cross motion for summary judgment, we grant defendant summary judgment dismissing the complaint pursuant to the doctrine of res judicata” (Upon reversal, the case should be dismissed based upon res judicata)
Related Articles
- Understanding Declaratory Judgment Actions and Res Judicata in New York No-Fault Cases
- Supplemental affirmation on a DJ case acceptable and res judicata mandates dismissal of complaint
- Notice of Entry is not what some think it means
- Can a Declaration of Non-Coverage that Arises from a Co-Defendant’s Default be Considered Collateral Estoppel Against the Appearing and Answering Defendant?
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
Res Judicata & Collateral Estoppel in New York
Res judicata (claim preclusion) and collateral estoppel (issue preclusion) prevent parties from relitigating claims or issues that have already been decided. In no-fault practice, these doctrines arise when prior arbitration awards or court decisions address the same claim or common legal questions. The application of preclusion doctrines to no-fault arbitration outcomes and their effect on subsequent litigation is a nuanced area of law. These articles examine how New York courts apply res judicata and collateral estoppel in insurance and injury cases.
21 published articles in Res Judicata
Keep Reading
More Res Judicata Analysis
Res judicata – privity
New York appellate court ruling demonstrates how res judicata prevents relitigation between parties in privity, even when different property owners are involved.
May 7, 2020Avoiding the 120-day rule to make a summary judgment motion
Court ruling shows how defendants can avoid CPLR's 120-day summary judgment rule when motion involves purely legal questions rather than factual disputes.
Feb 19, 2018A declaration of non-coverage is res judicata to the specific date of the accident.
Court rules declaratory judgment on no-fault coverage is res judicata only for specific accident dates listed, not all claims by the same parties.
Sep 9, 2013Does this make sense?
New York appellate court ruling reveals surprising disparity between complaint dismissal sanctions and preclusion orders under CPLR 3126, raising constitutional questions.
Apr 25, 2010Judgment in declaratory judgment action does not need to rendered against Assignor to be effective
New York court rules judgment in declaratory action bars assignee recovery without direct order against assignor in no-fault insurance case.
Oct 31, 2016Notice of Entry is not what some think it means
Court rules Notice of Entry requirement can nullify summary judgment orders in NY no-fault insurance cases, highlighting procedural pitfalls for providers and insurers.
Jul 6, 2014Common Questions
Frequently Asked Questions
What is res judicata and how does it apply to no-fault cases?
Res judicata (claim preclusion) prevents a party from relitigating a claim that was already decided on the merits. In no-fault litigation, if an arbitrator or court has already ruled on a specific claim between the same parties, the losing party cannot bring the same claim again. This applies to both providers and insurers.
What is the difference between res judicata and collateral estoppel?
Res judicata bars relitigation of an entire claim that was previously decided. Collateral estoppel (issue preclusion) bars relitigation of a specific factual issue that was actually decided in a prior proceeding. Both doctrines promote finality and judicial efficiency, but they apply differently depending on what was previously adjudicated.
Can a no-fault arbitration decision have res judicata effect?
Yes. No-fault master arbitration decisions that are confirmed or not challenged can have preclusive effect in subsequent proceedings. However, the scope depends on whether the same claims and issues were actually litigated and decided. Courts examine the specific findings of the arbitrator when applying res judicata.
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 res judicata 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.