American Transit Ins. Co. v Cano

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

American Transit Ins. Co. v Cano 2012 NY Slip Op 31608(U) June 13, 2012 Sup Ct, New York County Docket Number: 113160/2011 Judge: Milton A. Tingling Republished from New York State Unified Court System's E-Courts Service. Search E-Courts (http://www.nycourts.gov/ecourts) for any additional information on this case. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. [* 1] SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK NEW YORK COUNTY INDEX NO. 7zL ; MOTION DATE -V- MOTION SEQ. NO. ~ ~- ~~ a ~ ,were h a d on this motion to/for The following paperr, numberod I to Notice of MotiodOrdsr to Show Caure -Affldavlta - Exhibits Anrworlng Amdavlts - Exhlbitm Replying Affldavlta Upon the foregolng paperq, It I ordered that this motlon I s s 2 ~ 4,$, INo(*). IW S ) . INoh). &~c..~dmc4 NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK'S OFFICE ,J.S.C. 1. CHECK ONE: ..................................................................... 2. CHECK AS APPROPRIATE: 3. CHECK IF APPROPRIATE: .............. MOTION IS: ................................................ CASE DISPOSED --FINAL DISPOSITION GRANTED 0SETTLE ORDER SUBMIT ORDER 0DO NOT POST 0FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT 0REFERENCE [* 2] Index No. 1 13 160/2011 Plaintiff, DECSION AND ORDER - against- BRIAN CANO, 24/7 EMERGENCY CARE, P.C., AHS HOSP C O W MMH, ARMAC INC., HAKAN M. KUTLU, MD, JOSEPH DEBELLIS, MD, MEMORIAL MDIOLOGY ASSOC, LLC, M O M S IMAGING ASSOC. 11, P.A., MORRISTOWN MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, STONY BROOK EMERGENCY PHYSICAINS UFPC / CLINICAL PRATICE MP, SOUTHAMPTON HOSPITAL, SOUTHAMPTON RADIOLOGY, P.C., STONY BROOK UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL AND TRICOUNTY ORTHOPAEDIC AND SPORTS MEDICICE, P.A., JUN 1 8 2012 NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK'S OFFICE Background b By complaint dated November 16th,20 11, Plaintiff American Transit Insurance Company seeks a declaratory judgment stating (1) Defendant Brian Can0 is not an eligible injured person entitled to no-fault benefits under an insurance policy with the Plaintiff, (2) that Plaintiff is not required to provide, pay or honor any current or future claim for no-fault benefits under the Mandatory Personal Injury Protection endorsement under said insurance policy, and (3) that Plaintiff is not obligated to honor or pay claims for reimbursement submitted by any of the Defendants listed above. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Brian Cano, who was allegedly involved in an automobile accident, failed to appear for a medical examination, which was a condition precedent to payment under the insurance policy. Accordingly, Plaintiff asserts that Mr. Can0 is not entitled to no-fault benefits under the insurance policy. Furthermore, Plaintiff [* 3] alleges that the other Defendants, which are comprised of various health care providers that rendered services to Mr. Cano, are also ineligible to receive payments from Plaintiff, due to Mr. Cano s alleged failure to appew for a medical examination. Defendants AHS Hospital Corp. and Morristown Memorial Hospital now move pursuant to C.P.L.R 5 321 1 (a)@), to dismiss the complaint against Defendants for lack of personal jurisdiction. In their motion, Defendants asserts that Defendant Morristown Memorial Hospital and AHS Hospital C o p , which operates the Hospital, are located in Morristown, New Jersey and do not do any business iri New York or have any connection to the State. In opposition to the motion, Plaintiff asserts that Defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction in New York because Defendant seeks compensation from Plaintiff, a New York Insurance Company, as an assignee under a New York policy, pursuant to New York s No-Fault laws. For the reasons stated herein, Defendants motion is denied. Discussion New York Courts have held that in order to establish whether the exercising personal jurisdiction over a non-domiciliary is proper, it must be determined (1) whether New York s long-arm statute (CPLR 302) confers jurisdiction and (2) whether the exercise of jurisdiction comports with due process. LaMarca v. Pak-Mor Mfg, Co., 95 N.Y. 2d 210 (2000). CPLR 6 302 states, in relevant part, that a court may exercise personal jurisdiction over any non-domiciliary who transacts any business within the state. Furthermore, it has been held that proof of one transaction in New York is sufficient to invoke jurisdiction, even though the Defendant never enters New York, so long as the Defendants activities were purposefd and there is a substantial relationship between the transaction and the claim asserted. Deutsche Bank Securities, Inc. v. [* 4] Montana Bd. of investments, 7 N.Y.3d 65 (2006). Finally, New York Courts have held that the overriding criterion necessary to establish a transaction of business is some act by which the defendant purposefully avails itself of the privileges of conducting activities within New York. Enrenfeld v. Bin Mahfouz, 9 N.Y.3d 501 (2007). In the instance case, Defendants billed a New York Corporation, in the State of New York, as an assignee under a New York insurance policy and pursuant to New York s NoFault laws. Thus, Defendants have purposefully transacted business within the state and said transaction is the basis of the claim asserted by Plaintiffs. Furthermore, by seeking compensation under a New York insurance policy in accordance with New York s No-Fault laws, Defendants purposefully availed itself of the privileges of conducting activities within the state. Accordingly, this court s exercise of personal jurisdiction over Defendants is properpursuant to CPLR 8 302(a)(l). Furthermore, Defendants contacts with the State of New York are such that the exercise h of personal jurisdiction comports with due process. The Court of Appeals has held that Due process is not satisfied unless a non-domiciliary has minimum contacts with the fonun state. LaMurca v. Puk-Mor Mfg. Co., 95 N.Y.2d 210 (2000). Paraphrasing the U.S. Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals stated, the test has come to rest on whether defendant s conduct and connection with the forum state are such that it should reasonably anticipate being haled into court there. Id. In the case at bar, Defendants established the requisite minimum contacts with this state by billing a New York Corporation pursuant to a New York insurance policy and New York s No-Fault laws and requirements. In so doing, Defendants invoked the privileges and protections of this State and should therefore reasonably anticipate being haled into court here. [* 5] Thus, the exercise of personal jurisdiction over defendants conforms to the requirements of due process. Conclusion Accordingly, for the aforementioned reasons stated herein, Defendants motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction is denied. In addition, Plaintiffs request for costs for opposing Defendants motion is denied. Dated: June 13,20 12 F E NEW YORK H K S OFFICE

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.