S.I.A. Med. Supply Inc. v GEICO Ins. Co.

[*1] S.I.A. Med. Supply Inc. v GEICO Ins. Co. 2005 NYSlipOp 51170(U) Decided on July 21, 2005 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 July 21, 2005
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
APPELLATE TERM: 2nd and 11th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: July 21, 2005 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK APPELLATE TERM : 2nd and 11th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS PRESENT : PESCE, P.J., PATTERSON and RIOS, JJ.
2004-1561 Q C

S.I.A. Medical Supply Inc., a/a/o DAPHNEE EYMA, MARGARITA MELAMED, JULIA MOURA VIEVA, THERESE GONZALEZ, MAUREEN GONZALEZ, ILYA VAYNSHTOK, ALEX NARODITSKY, GENNADIY PEREVOZKIN, YEVGENIAYA PEREVOZKINA, LIDIA KIZYUN, ANNA KRAMAREVA, Respondent,

against

GEICO Insurance Company, Appellant.

Appeal by defendant from an order of the Civil Court, Queens County (D. Pineda-Kirwan), entered April 28, 2004, denying its motion to sever the claim of each assignor into a separate action.

Order unanimously reversed without costs and defendant's motion to sever the claim of each assignor into a separate action granted.

Plaintiff commenced this action to recover no-fault benefits as assignee of 11 eligible injured persons. The claims allegedly arose out of separate accidents involving different assignors. Defendant moved to sever the assigned claims in the complaint into separate actions pursuant to CPLR 603, which motion the court below denied by order entered April 28, 2004. We note that although this case involves 11 different assignors, the appellate record is not clear as to whether the second through eleventh causes of action involve 5 or 10 separate accidents.

In light of the recent trend in cases involving severance of large numbers of assigned claims which, if tried together, would be unwieldy and would create a substantial risk of confusing the trier of fact, we find that the particular facts herein relating to each claim are likely to raise few, if any, common issues of law or fact, even if the assignors' insurance policies are identical (see Radiology Resource Network, P.C. v Fireman's Fund Ins. Co., 12 AD3d 185 [*2][2004]). Defendant's answer clearly places at issue, inter alia, the necessity and reasonableness of the rendered medical supplies [*3]
and the sufficiency of the no-fault forms that have been submitted (see Metro Med. Diagnostics, P.C. v Motor Veh. Acc. Indem. Corp., 6 Misc 3d 136[A], 2005 NY Slip Op 50238[U] [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists]).
Decision Date: July 21, 2005