Interboro Ins. Co. v Willis

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Interboro Ins. Co. v Willis 2013 NY Slip Op 32154(U) September 6, 2013 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: 153701/2013 Judge: Cynthia Kern Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U), are republished from various state and local government websites. These include the New York State Unified Court System's E-Courts Service, and the Bronx County Clerk's office. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. [*FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/10/2013 1] INDEX NO. 153701/2013 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 39 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/10/2013 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK NEW YORK COUNTY ).,,PRESENT: r . c""rT'~'A s. I I PART _ __ J.S.C' Justice Index Number: 153701/2013 INTERBORO INSURANCE COMPANY vs. WILLIS, LANA SEQUENCENUMBER:003 \. KER~ COMPEL OR STAY ARBITRATION --I I INDEX NO. _ _ _ __ MOTION DATE _ _ __ MOTION SEQ. NO. _ __ -~====~--------~~----~------'The following papers, numbered 1 to _ _ , were read on this motion to/for _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ Notice of Motion/Order to Show Cause - Affidavits - Exhibits Answering Affidavits - Exhibits _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ Replying Affidavits _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ I No(s)._ _ _ _ __ I No(s). _ _ _ _ __ I No(s). _ _ _ _ __ Upon the foregoing papers, it is ordered that this motion is w u i= en ::> ., o l- e w a::: a::: w u.. w a::: ¢. ~..J ~ ..J Z ::> 0 __ u.. en I- ~ w U W 3; a::: (!) z a::: en 3: - 0 W ..J en ..J W ~ 0 u u.. Z W J: o Ii= a::: o 0 :::E u.. ------:-7.~rTi!~~~\(~e.Ru.:N~-, CVN"'\-\'~ 2. CHECK AS APPROPRIATE: ........................... MOTION IS: 0 0 GRANTED 3. CHECK IF APPROPRIATE: ................................................ 0 SETTLE ORDER 1. CHECK ONE: ........... ¢..................... ¢................... ¢... ¢........... ~ NON-FINAL DISPOSITION CASE DISPOSED DDO NOT POST 0 J.S.C. J.S.c. DENIED o GRANTED IN PART 0 o SUBMIT ORDER o FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT 0 OTHER REFERENCE [* 2] SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK: Part 55 --____________________________________________________ ----------------x INTERBORO INSURANCE COMPANY, Petitioner, Index No. 15370112013 DECISION/ORDER -againstLANA WILLIS, AMIL ACUPUNCTURE P .C., JACKSON HEIGHTS CHIROPRACTIC, P.C., ORLANDO ORTIZ, M.D., U.S. HEALTH PRODUCTS INC. and VS SUNRISE MEDICAL P.C., Respondents. --------------------------------------------------------------------x HON. CYNTHIA S. KERN, J.S.c. Recitation, as required by CPLR 2219(a), of the papers considered in the review of this motion for: ------------------------------------Papers Notice of Motion and Affidavits Annexed ................................... . Affirmation in Opposition ........................................................... . Replying Affidavits ..................................................................... . Exhibits...................................................................................... Numbered 2 Plaintiff commenced the instant action seeking a declaratory judgment that defendants are not entitled to no-fault coverage or reimbursement for their claims submitted on behalf of plaintiff's insured Lana Willis. Plaintiff now moves for an order granting the following relief: (a) pursuant to CPLR § 2201 and § 7503(c) staying the pending arbitrations between plaintiff and defendants Amil Acupuncture P.C. ("Amil"), U.S. Health Products Inc. ("U.S. Health") and VS Sunrise Medical P.c. ("VS Sunrise") pending the resolution of the instarit action; (b) pursuant to I I I CPLR § 326 and § 327 further staying the arbitrations for purpose of removing the Arbitrations to this court; (c) pursuant to CPLR § 602 consolidating the arbitrations with the instant matter; [* 3] and (d) staying interest on the arbitration matters pending a determination on the instant motion. For the reasons set forth below, plaintiffs motion is denied without opposition. The relevant facts are as follows. On September 2,2012, defendants' assignor Lana Willis was allegedly involved in an automobile accident on wherein she sustained bodily injuries (the "Accident"). Thereafter, plaintiff sought treatment from the various defendants. As payment for said services, Ms. Willis assigned ~er right to collect first party no-fault benefits to the various defendants. According to plaintiffs complaint, plaintiff den~ed defendants' claims based upon Ms. Willis's failure to appear for Independent Medical EXanlinations ("IMEs"). Prior to the commencement of this action, defendants Amil, U.S.'Health and VS Sunrise submitted their disputes regarding reimbursement of first-party no-fault benefits to arbitration before the New York No-Fault Conciliation Center of the American Arbitration Association (the "AAA"). Plaintiff now moves to stay the arbitration proceedings already in,itiated by Amil, U.S. Health and VS Sunrise and to have those proceedings consolidated with ~his Supreme Court declaratory judgment action. Defendants have not submitted opposition. Pursuant to Insurance Law Section 51 06(b), "[ e]very insurer shall provide a claimant with the option of submitting any dispute involving the insurer's liability to pay first party benefits ... to arbitration." Additionally, the No Fault Mandatory Personal Injury Pr?tection Endorsement provides: Arbitration. In the event any person making a claim for first-partY benefits and the Company do not agree regarding any matter relating to the claim" such person shall have the option of submitting such disagreement to arbitration pursuant to procedures promulgated or approved by the Superintendent oflnsurance. 1 (N. Y.C.R.R. 65-1.1 2 [* 4] , It is well settled that these arbitration provisions were enacted to "reduce significantly the burden " of automobile personal injury litigation on the courts" and "to offer a me~hanism where disputes over reimbursable expenses can be resolved more swiftly and economically than is generally possible in plenary suits." Raggio v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 66 N.y'~d 260, 264 (1985). If arbitration has been initiated, a party may bring an application to stay an arbitration pursuant to CPLR § 7503 (b) "on the ground that a valid agreement was not made or has not been complied with or that the claim sought to be arbitrated is barred by limitation under subdivision i (b) of section 7502." Additionally, "[e]xcept where otherwise prescribed by law, the court in which an action is pending may grant a stay of proceedings in a proper case upon such terms as may be just." CPLR § 2201. In the present case, plaintiffs motion seeking to stay the arbitrati~ns already commenced by Amil, U.S. Health and VS Sunrise and remove and consolidate those proceedings with the 1 instant action is denied as it has failed to demonstrate the conditions necessary to stay a properly initiated arbitration and remove the controversies to this court to be decided. It is undisputed that 1 Amil, U.S. Health and VS Sunrise had the right to seek arbitration to challenge plaintiffs denial I of their no-fault claims and that arbitration is not barred by any other limitation under CPLR § , 7502 (b). Thus, plaintiff has failed to establish a proper ground pursuant to CPLR § 7503 (b) warranting a stay. Additionally, the court declines to exercise its discretion to issue a stay under I CPLR § 2201 as plaintiff has failed to show why this court should stay a properly initiated J arbitration. Plaintiffs contention that it would be in the interest of judicial economy to have all disputes arising from the Accident heard in this proceeding is unavailing'. Indeed, this would be in direct contravention to the purpose of enacting the no-fault arbitration procedures in the first 3 [* 5] place-i.e. to "reduce significantly the burden of automobile personal inju~ litigation on the ~ courts." Roggio, 66 N.Y.2d at 264. Additionally, plaintiffs reliance on CPLR § 327(a) and § 602 for removal and consolidation of the pending arbitrations from the AAA to this action is misplaced. The pending arbitrations are before the AAA, a completely separate entity from this court. Thus, the court does not have the authority to remove these disputes and consolidate them with the instant action. ; I Simply put, neither CPLR § 327(a) nor § 602 endows the court with the ~uthority to remove a properly initiated arbitration in front of the AAA to be decided by this court. Based on the foregoing, plaintiffs motion is denied in its entirety. This constitutes the decision and order of the court. Dated: Enter: eVJ( lS.C. CYNTHIA S. KERN J.B.C. 4

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.