Purewal v Kalsi

[*1] Purewal v Kalsi 2022 NY Slip Op 51390(U) Decided on December 15, 2022 Civil Court Of The City Of New York, New York County Parker, J. 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 December 15, 2022
Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County

Namrita Purewal Claimant,

against

Kanwaldeep S. Kalsi, Defendant.



Index No. Sc-000852-22/NY


Kim M. Parker, J.

This court held a bench trial of the instant small claims action on November 15, 2022. The trial was held on the record at 111 Centre Street, New York, New York. Both parties appeared in-person.

BACKGROUND

On May 04, 2022, Claimant Namrita Purewal ("Claimant") commenced this small claims court action under Index No. SC-000852-22/NY against Defendant Kanwaldeep S. Kalsi ("Defendant") for failure to pay insurance claim for $2,283.00. Both sides were self-represented. Claimant submitted into evidence Supreme Court — State New York — Suffolk County Decision and Order after Trial/Judgment of Divorce Index No.05035/2017; Family Wizard reports; emails, among other items, collectively, marked as Claimant's Exhibit 1.

Defendant submitted into evidence MetLife policy, among other items, marked as "Defendant's Exhibit A".

FINDINGS OF FACT

At trial, Claimant testified that pursuant to the parties 2017 divorce proceedings, the Supreme Court Order required Defendant to maintain health, dental and vision insurance for Claimant until there was a judgement of divorce which was entered on April 14, 2022. Claimant January 31, 2022 dental claim was denied twice due to lack of insurance coverage. She asserts that Defendant did not notify her that there was a new insurance policy in effect for several months. However, Defendant provided the new MetLife insurance policy on June 7. Notwithstanding, Claimant did not want to resubmit her dental claim a third time.

Defendant asserted that he told Claimant about the new dental insurance coverage, however he could not remember when he told her. Claimant and the children were covered until May 27, 2022. Furthermore, Claimant can still submit the claim for payment, however she refused to do so. Defendant also testified that per the conditions of their divorce, Claimant is [*2]responsible for 19% of the bill.

CONCLUSION OF LAW

This Court declines to render a decision because the issue presented at trial is pursuant to a divorce Order rendered by another court with jurisdiction over this matter. In dicta, Claimant should proceed to resubmit the dental claim under the MetLife policy.

VERDICT

Accordingly, regarding Index No.: SC-000838-21/NY it is the verdict of the Court that judgment is granted in favor of Defendant and this matter is dismissed; and it is further

ORDERED that the Clerk is directed to enter judgment in Defendant's favor accordingly.

This constitutes the decision, verdict, and order of the Court.

Dated: December 15, 2022
New York, New York
KIM M. PARKER
Judge of the Civil Court