RJA Physical Therapy, P.C. v Geico Cas. Co.

[*1] RJA Physical Therapy, P.C. v Geico Cas. Co. 2012 NY Slip Op 52047(U) Decided on October 18, 2012 Appellate Term, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on October 18, 2012
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 2d, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : PESCE, P.J., WESTON and RIOS, JJ
2010-3123 K C. October 18, 2012

RJA Physical Therapy, P.C. as Assignee of MOSHA CAMPBELL, KERVINTZ CEAN, DARNELL CRAWFORD, BALINCIA DARING, ANNE MAKOUL, DAVID SNAGG and HOWARD TULLOCH, Respondent,

against

Geico Casualty Company, Appellant.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Robin S. Garson, J.), entered August 19, 2010. The order denied defendant's motion to sever the claim of each assignor into separate actions.

ORDERED that the order is reversed, with $30 costs, and defendant's motion to sever the claim of each assignor into separate actions is granted.

Plaintiff commenced this action to recover first-party no-fault benefits as assignee of seven individuals, whose alleged injuries arose out of six different accidents. The Civil Court denied defendant's motion to sever the causes of action into seven separate actions pursuant to CPLR 603.

The reasons listed on the denial of claim forms for the claims at issue vary. The basis set forth on the denials for some of the claims submitted by plaintiff on behalf of two of its assignors was that they had failed to appear for independent medical examinations. For claims submitted by plaintiff on behalf of a different assignor, the denial of claim forms are based upon, among other things, a lack of coverage. For some claims submitted by plaintiff on behalf of yet another assignor, the denial of claim forms state that the claim forms were not timely submitted. Under the circumstances, we find that the claims are likely to raise few common issues of law or fact and that, therefore, defendant's motion to sever the causes of action should have been granted (see Radiology Resource Network, P.C. v Fireman's Fund Ins. Co., 12 AD3d 185 [2004]).

Pesce, P.J., Weston and Rios, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: October 18, 2012