State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Autorx, LLC

2021 NY Slip Op 32259(U)

STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. AUTORX, LLC, CHC CHIROPRACTIC, P.C., OCEAN SPINE AND JOINT MEDICAL CARE, P.C., also known as COMPREHENSIVE CHIROPRACTIC CENTER, KANWARPAUL GREWAL, D.O., JCB ACUPUNCTURE, P.C., NEW YORK CITY FIRE DEPARTMENT EMS., OCEAN VALLEY PHYSICAL MEDICINE, P.C., STAND-UP MRI OF LYNBROOK, and MIKHEAL BOGLE Defendants.

MOTION SEQ. No. 001

Index No. 154158/2020

Supreme Court, New York County

November 10, 2021

Unpublished Opinion

PRESENT: HON. JOHN J. KELLEY Justice.

DECISION + ORDER ON MOTION

JOHN J. KELLEY JUDGE.

The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 001) 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26 27 were read on this motion to/for JUDGMENT - DEFAULT .

In this declaratory judgment action, the plaintiff insurer, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (State Farm), moves pursuant to CPLR 3215 for leave to enter a default judgment against the defendant Mikheal Bogle, as well as the defendants Autorx, LLC, CHC Chiropractic, P.C., Ocean Spine and Joint Medical Care, P.C., also known as Comprehensive Chiropractic Center, Kanwarpaul Grewal, D.O., JCB Acupuncture, P.C., New York City Fire Department EMS, Ocean Valley Physical Medicine, P.C., and Stand-Up MRI of Lynbrook (collectively the medical defendants) declaring that it is not obligated to pay no-fault benefits to Bogle in connection with injuries that he sustained in a motor vehicle accident or to reimburse the medical defendants for treatment they rendered or equipment and supplies they provided to him for those injuries. No opposition is submitted. The motion is granted to the extent that the court shall enter a default judgment against all of the defendants other than New York City Fire Department EMS (FDNY EMS), and the motion is denied as to that defendant.

Bogle claimed that he was injured in a motor vehicle accident on April 28, 2019, and that he thereafter obtained medical treatment or medical supplies from the medical defendants, among others. The medical defendants sought payment, as Bogle's assignees, for no-fault benefits under insurance policy number 284815452, as issued by State Farm to Bogle under claim number 52-8617-T49 (see Insurance Law 5106[a]; 11 NYCRR 65-1.1). Bogle timely appeared for and submitted to an examination under oath (EUO). State Farm timely denied the numerous claims for benefits (see 11 NYCRR 65-3.8[a][1]), concluding that, based on Bogle's testimony at the EUO and its own investigation, Bogle made material misrepresentations in his initial application for the issuance of the subject insurance policy with respect to where the insured vehicle was usually garaged and maintained in order to lower the cost of obtaining the policy, and that coverage was thus vitiated.

Where a plaintiff moves for leave to enter a default judgment, it must submit proof of service of the summons and complaint upon the defaulting defendant, proof of the defendant's default, and proof of the facts constituting the claim (see CPLR 3215[f]; Woodson v. Mendon Leasing Corp., 100 N.Y.2d 62, 70-71 [2003]; Gray v. Doyle, 170 A.D.3d 969, 971 [2d Dept 2019]; Rivera v. Correction Officer L. Banks, 135 A.D.3d 621 [1st Dept 2016]; Atlantic Cas. Ins. Co. v. RJNJ Services, Inc. 89 A.D.3d 649 [2d Dept 2011]; Allstate Ins. Co. v. Austin, 48 A.D.3d 720, 720 [2d Dept 2008]; see also Manhattan Telecom. Corp. v. H & A Locksmith, Inc., 21 N.Y.3d 200 [2013]).

The affidavits of service filed by the plaintiff establish that Bogle and all of the medical defendants, save FDNY EMS, were properly served with process, as a process server's affidavit of service is prima facie evidence of proper service (see Johnson v. Deas, 32 A.D.3d 253, 254 [1st Dept 2006]). With respect to service upon FDNY EMS, that entity, formally known as the New York City Fire Department Bureau of Emergency Medical Services, is a division of the New York City Fire Department (FDNY). The FDNY, in turn, is an agency of the City of New York (see New York City Charter § 481; Sams v. New York City Hous. Auth., 2012 NY Slip Op 30387[U], *4, 2012 NY Misc. LEXIS 722, *3 [Sup Ct, N.Y. County, Feb. 21, 2012 [NY City Charter § 396 requires all actions seeking money damages from the City to name only the City as a defendant, regardless of the agency alleged to be responsible for the damages; FDNY, as a city agency, is not an entity amenable to suit for money damages]). Pursuant to CPLR 311(a)(2), proper service upon a New York City agency in a declaratory judgment action or CPLR article 78 proceeding requires personal service of the notice of the summons and complaint upon "the corporation counsel or [ ] any person designated to receive process in a writing filed in the office of the clerk of New York County" (see Matter of Exxon Mobil Corp. v. New York City Dept. of Envtl. Protection, 178 A.D.3d 696, 698-699 [2d Dept 2019]). The plaintiff served the summons and complaint upon a person at the offices of Medical Receivables Billing Group in Uniondale, New York, a private billing and insurance claim processing firm that apparently processes claims for ambulance services rendered by FDNY. This is insufficient to establish that FDNY EMS was properly served and, hence, State Farm is not entitled to the entry of a default judgment against that defendant.

The affirmation of State Farm's attorney established that neither Bogle, nor the medical defendants who were properly served, either answered the complaint, timely moved with respect to the complaint, or appeared in the action.

With respect to the proof of the facts constituting the claim,

"CPLR 3215 does not contemplate that default judgments are to be rubber-stamped once jurisdiction and a failure to appear have been shown. Some proof of liability is also required to satisfy the court as to the prima facie validity of the uncontested cause of action (see, 4 Weinstein-Korn-Miller, NY Civ Prac paras. 3215.22-3215.27). The standard of proof is not stringent, amounting only to some firsthand confirmation of the facts"

(Joosten v. Gale, 129 A.D.2d 531, 535 [1st Dept 1987]; see Martinez v. Reiner, 104 A.D.3d 477, 478 [1st Dept 2013]; Beltre v. Babu, 32 A.D.3d 722, 723 [1st Dept 2006]). Stated another way, while the "quantum of proof necessary to support an application for a default judgment is not exacting . . . some firsthand confirmation of the facts forming the basis of the claim must be proffered" (Guzetti v. City of New York, 32 A.D.3d 234, 236 [1st Dept 2006]). In other words, the proof submitted must establish a prima facie case (see id.; Silberstein v. Presbyterian Hosp., 95 A.D.2d 773 [2d Dept 1983]).

"Where a valid cause of action is not stated, the party moving for judgment is not entitled to the requested relief, even on default" (Green v. Dolphy Constr. Co., 187 A.D.2d 635, 636 [2d Dept 1992]; see Walley v. Leatherstocking Healthcare, LLC, 79 A.D.3d 1236, 1238 [3d Dept 2010]). In moving for leave to enter a default judgment, the plaintiff must "state a viable cause of action" (Fappiano v. City of New York, 5 A.D.3d 627, 628 [2d Dept 2004]). In evaluating whether the plaintiff has fulfilled this obligation, the defendant, as the defaulting party, is "deemed to have admitted all factual allegations contained in the complaint and all reasonable inferences that flow from them" (Woodson v. Mendon Leasing Corp., 100 N.Y.2d 62, 71 [2003]). The court, however, must still reach the legal conclusion that those factual allegations establish a prima facie case (see Matter of Dyno v. Rose, 260 A.D.2d 694, 698 [3d Dept 1999]).

Proof that the plaintiff has submitted "enough facts to enable [the] court to determine that a viable" cause of action exists (Woodson v. Mendon Leasing Corp., 100 N.Y.2d at 71; see Gray v. Doyle, 170 A.D.3d at 971) may be established by an affidavit of a party or someone with knowledge, authenticated documentary proof, or by complaint verified by the plaintiff that sufficiently details the facts and the basis for the defendant's liability (see CPLR 105[u]; Woodson v. Mendon Leasing Corp., 100 N.Y.2d at 71; Gray v. Doyle, 170 A.D.3d at 971; Voelker v. Bodum USA, Inc., 149 A.D.3d 587, 587 [1st Dept 2017]; Al Fayed v. Barak, 39 A.D.3d 371, 371 [1st Dept 2007]; see also Michael v. Atlas Restoration Corp., 159 A.D.3d 980, 982 [2d Dept 2018]; Zino v. Joab Taxi, Inc., 20 A.D.3d 521, 522 [2d Dept 2005]; see generally Mitrani Plasterers Co., Inc. v. SCG Contr. Corp., 97 A.D.3d 552, 553 [2d Dept 2012]).

Where an insured makes material misrepresentations on his or her application for insurance as to where he or she regularly garages a vehicle sought to be insured, coverage is defeated (see Remedial Med. Care, P.C. v. Infinity Prop. &amp Cas. Co., 2017 NY Slip Op 50391[U], 55 Misc.3d 130[A] [App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists, Mar. 31, 2017]; Jamaica Dedicated Med. Care, P.C. v. Praetorian Ins. Co., 2015 NY Slip Op 50756[U], 47 Misc.3d 147[A] [App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists, May 6, 2015]; see also Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Mendez, 2021 NY Slip Op 30071[U], *4, 2021 NY Misc. LEXIS 85, *6-7 [Sup...