Key Takeaway
Jamaica Wellness Appellate Division victories: Fourth Department clarifies successive summary judgment motions in no-fault insurance cases following prior appeal decisions.
This article is part of our ongoing declaratory judgment action coverage, with 56 published articles analyzing declaratory judgment action 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.
Nationwide Affinity Ins. Co. of Am. v Jamaica Wellness Med., P.C., 2020 NY Slip Op 00971 (4th Dept. 2020)
I still think that the Fourth Department should have followed the First Department as modified by Longevity. That said, a change or clarification in the law should allow a successive summary judgment motion.
“The Nationwide plaintiffs subsequently filed a second motion for summary judgment on the complaint and submitted, inter alia, a detailed affidavit of the claims specialist, the subject denial of claim forms, and affidavits of the operations manager of their third-party claims processor. Defendant cross-moved pursuant to CPLR 3124 to compel discovery. Supreme Court denied the motion on the ground that it was an improper successive motion for summary judgment and granted in part the cross motion. The Nationwide plaintiffs now appeal.
We agree with the Nationwide plaintiffs that the court erred in refusing to entertain their second summary judgment motion. “Although successive summary judgment motions generally are disfavored absent newly discovered evidence or other sufficient cause … , neither Supreme Court nor this Court is precluded from addressing the merits of such a motion” (Giardina v Lippes, 77 AD3d 1290, 1291 , lv denied 16 NY3d 702 ; see Putrelo Constr. Co. v Town of Marcy, 137 AD3d 1591, 1593 ). Here, our intervening decision in the prior appeal, which clarified that the defense based on nonappearance at an EUO is subject to the preclusion remedy and that the Nationwide plaintiffs were therefore required to establish that they issued timely denials on that ground, constitutes sufficient cause to entertain the motion (see Pludeman v Northern Leasing Sys., Inc., 106 AD3d 612, 616 ).
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.
We further agree with the Nationwide plaintiffs that they are entitled to summary judgment. Contrary to defendant’s contentions, we conclude upon our review of the record that the Nationwide plaintiffs met their burden as movant and that defendant failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Nationwide Affinity Ins. Co. of Am. v Beacon Acupuncture, P.C., 175 AD3d 1836, 1837 ).
In addition, defendant’s ” mere hope or speculation’ that further discovery will lead to evidence sufficient to defeat motion is insufficient to warrant denial thereof” (Kaufmann’s Carousel, Inc. v Carousel Ctr. Co. LP, 87 AD3d 1343, 1345 , lv dismissed 18 NY3d 975 , rearg denied 19 NY3d 938 ; see Austin v CDGA Natl. Bank Trust & Canandaigua Natl. Corp., 114 AD3d 1298, 1301 ; see generally CPLR 3212 ). In light of our determination, defendant’s cross motion to compel discovery is dismissed as moot (see Clark C.B. v Fuller, 59 AD3d 1030, 1031 ). We therefore reverse the order by granting the motion, dismissing the cross motion, and granting judgment in favor of the Nationwide plaintiffs declaring that they are under no obligation to pay or reimburse any of the subject claims.”
Nationwide Affinity Ins. Co. of Am. v PFJ Med. Care, P.C., 2020 NY Slip Op 00972 (4th Dept. 2020)
” Here, to establish their entitlement to summary judgment by making the requisite showing with respect to their defense to payment of the subject claims based upon defendants’ nonappearance at the EUOs, the Nationwide plaintiffs submitted facts that were known to them but not offered on the prior motions for summary judgment (see CPLR 2221 ). **
The Nationwide plaintiffs also established a reasonable justification for failing to present such facts on the prior motions inasmuch as this Court, in our intervening decision in Jamaica Wellness, held for the first time and in contrast to established precedent in another department that the defense based on nonappearance at an EUO is subject to the preclusion remedy and, therefore, that an insurance carrier seeking a declaration that it is not obligated to pay claims due to such nonappearance must establish, inter alia, that it issued timely and proper denials** (167 AD3d at 197-198; [
\1, 1307 ).”
Related Articles
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 Actions in Insurance Law
Declaratory judgment actions under CPLR 3001 allow insurers and claimants to obtain a judicial determination of their rights under an insurance policy before or during the course of litigation. In the no-fault context, carriers frequently seek declaratory judgments on coverage, fraud, and policy procurement issues. These articles analyze the procedural requirements, strategic considerations, and substantive standards governing declaratory judgment practice in New York insurance disputes.
56 published articles in Declaratory Judgment Action
Keep Reading
More Declaratory Judgment Action Analysis
Non contact case
New York appellate court reverses denial of summary judgment in no-fault insurance declaratory judgment action, finding motion not premature despite discovery issues.
Oct 17, 2019
After the DJ
New York court establishes when medical providers must be named in declaratory judgment actions for binding non-coverage decisions under res judicata doctrine.
Jul 24, 2019
Declaratory judgment reversed on appeal
Court reverses denial of default judgment in EUO case, finding attorney's affirmation under penalty of perjury sufficient proof of proper mailing procedures.
Jul 21, 2015
Civil Court properly granted motion to stay when DJ action is pending
Civil Court properly grants stay motion when declaratory judgment action pending - avoiding inconsistent adjudications in no-fault insurance cases.
Dec 8, 2013
Where was the reasonable excuse?
Two NY court cases examine reasonable excuse requirements for opening defaults in no-fault insurance litigation, highlighting challenges defendants face.
Jul 21, 2018
Preliminary injunction denied – the analysis is questionable
Court denies preliminary injunction in Liberty Mutual fraud case, finding insufficient evidence of fraudulent incorporation despite gaps in EUO testimony.
Sep 16, 2016Was 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 declaratory judgment action 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.
