Compas Med., P.C. v Geico Ins. Co.

[*1] Compas Med., P.C. v Geico Ins. Co. 2013 NY Slip Op 52016(U) Decided on November 29, 2013 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 November 29, 2013
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 2d, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : WESTON, J.P., RIOS and ALIOTTA, JJ
2012-868 K C.

Compas Medical, P.C. as Assignee of ANDRE PAUL, Appellant,

against

Geico Ins. Co., Respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Pamela L. Fisher, J.), entered January 18, 2012. The order granted defendant's motion to stay the action pending a final determination of a Supreme Court declaratory judgment action.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs.

In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, defendant moved to stay the action, pursuant to CPLR 2201, pending a final determination of a declaratory judgment action that had been commenced by defendant in the Supreme Court, Nassau County, entitled Geico Ins. Co. v Andre (Index No. 8085/2011). In that action, Geico alleged that the defendants named therein had engaged in a large-scale illegal scheme involving staged accidents and fraudulent billing practices and therefore Geico sought a declaration that it was not obligated to pay, among other things, no-fault benefits to those defendants. Both plaintiff and its assignor are named as defendants in the declaratory judgment action.

"[A] court has broad discretion to grant a stay in order to avoid the risk of inconsistent adjudications, application of proof and potential waste of judicial resources" (Zonghetti v [*2]Jeromack, 150 AD2d 561, 563 [1989]). Under the circumstances presented herein, it was not an improvident exercise of discretion for the Civil Court to grant defendant's motion to stay this action pending the resolution of the Supreme Court declaratory judgment action (see CPLR 2201).

Accordingly, the order is affirmed.

Weston, J.P., Rios and Aliotta, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: November 29, 2013