| Allstate Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v Carrier |
| 2017 NY Slip Op 01171 [147 AD3d 889] |
| February 15, 2017 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| Allstate Property & Casualty Insurance Company,Appellant, v Sharine Carrier et al., Defendants. |
Stern & Montana, LLP, New York, NY (Richard Montana of counsel), forappellant.
In an action for a judgment declaring, inter alia, that the plaintiff is not obligated toreimburse certain no-fault medical payments with respect to a motor vehicle collision thatoccurred on September 11, 2011, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, KingsCounty (Ruchelsman, J.), dated January 9, 2014, which denied its unopposed motion pursuant toCPLR 3215 for leave to enter a judgment against the defendants Sharine Carrier, RolandSebastian-Hall, Enis Sebastian, Jennine Eastmond, Active Care Medical Supply Corp., Amy M.Kott, MT, Graham Wellness Medical, P.C., Heel to Toe Foot Center, LLC, Immediate Imaging,P.C., Jing Luo Acupuncture, P.C., Precision Medical Diagnostics of NY, P.C., and Ultra OrthoProducts, Inc., upon their failure to appear or answer the complaint.
Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and theplaintiff's motion pursuant to CPLR 3215 for leave to enter a judgment against the defendantsSharine Carrier, Roland Sebastian-Hall, Enis Sebastian, Jennine Eastmond, Active Care MedicalSupply Corp., Amy M. Kott, MT, Graham Wellness Medical, P.C., Heel to Toe Foot Center,LLC, Immediate Imaging, P.C., Jing Luo Acupuncture, P.C., Precision Medical Diagnostics ofNY, P.C., and Ultra Ortho Products, Inc., declaring that (a) a motor vehicle collision thatoccurred on September 11, 2011, was an excluded act and all claims arising from that accidentare excluded under the terms and conditions of an automobile liability insurance policy issued tothe defendant Enis Sebastian, and (b) the plaintiff is not obligated to reimburse certain no-faultmedical payments, defend and indemnify the defendant Enis Sebastian against any third-partyclaims, or provide coverage for any uninsured or underinsured motorist claims with respect to thesubject motor vehicle collision is granted.
On September 11, 2011, the defendants Sharine Carrier, Roland Sebastian-Hall, and JennineEastmond (hereinafter collectively the claimants) allegedly were injured when their vehicle wassideswiped by a U-Haul truck. After the accident the claimants sought medical treatment from,among others, the defendants Active Care Medical Supply Corp., Graham Wellness Medical,P.C., Heel to Toe Foot Center, LLC, Immediate Imaging, P.C., Jing Luo Acupuncture, P.C.,Precision Medical Diagnostics of NY, P.C., and Ultra Ortho Products, Inc. (hereinaftercollectively the corporate medical providers), and the defendant Amy M. Kott, MT. Thereafter,the corporate medical providers and Kott sought reimbursement of no-fault benefits under anautomobile liability insurance policy issued to the defendant Enis Sebastian by the plaintiff,Allstate Property & Casualty Insurance Company, the insurer of the claimants' vehicle. OnNovember 21, 2012, the plaintiff commenced this action for a judgment declaring, inter alia, thatit is not obligated to reimburse the [*2]no-fault medical paymentsmade by the medical providers with respect to the subject motor vehicle collision. The individualdefendants were served pursuant to CPLR 308 (4) and the corporate medical providers wereserved via the secretary of state. On December 20, 2012 the plaintiff served the corporate medicalproviders with an additional copy of the summons and complaint pursuant to CPLR 3215 (g) (4).After the individual defendants and the corporate medical providers failed to appear or answer,the plaintiff moved by notice of motion dated August 13, 2013, for leave to enter a defaultjudgment against them. The Supreme Court denied the unopposed motion.
On a motion for leave to enter a default judgment under CPLR 3215, a plaintiff must submitproof of service of the summons and the complaint, the facts constituting the causes of action,and the defendant's default (see CPLR 3215 [f]; Roy v 81E98th KH Gym, LLC, 142 AD3d 985 [2016]; Gershman v Ahmad, 131 AD3d1104, 1105 [2015]; Dupps vBetancourt, 99 AD3d 855, 855 [2012]; Atlantic Cas. Ins. Co. v RJNJ Servs., Inc., 89 AD3d 649, 651[2011]). Here, the plaintiff provided copies of the affidavits of service, a complaint verified bythe plaintiff's authorized agent, an affidavit of merit, documentary evidence, and proof that theindividual defendants and the corporate medical providers had defaulted in answering thecomplaint. The plaintiff's proof was sufficient to establish a viable cause of action (seeWoodson v Mendon Leasing Corp., 100 NY2d 62, 70 [2003]). Accordingly, the plaintiff'sunopposed motion for leave to enter a default judgment against the individual defendants and thecorporate medical providers should have been granted. Rivera, J.P., Dillon, Chambers andHinds-Radix, JJ., concur.