Nica Acupuncture, P.C. v. American Ind. Ins. Co.

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Nica Acupuncture, P.C. v. American Ind. Ins. Co.

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedOctober 18, 2019

Docket2019 NYSlipOp 51696(U)

StatusPublished

This text of Nica Acupuncture, P.C. v. American Ind. Ins. Co. (Nica Acupuncture, P.C. v. American Ind. Ins. Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Nica Acupuncture, P.C. v. American Ind. Ins. Co., (N.Y. Ct. App. 2019).

Pincite

Opinion

NICA Acupuncture, P.C., Ocean One Physical Therapy, P.C., Oleg Barshay, D.C., as Assignees of Pierre Dumasais and Lunie Jacques, Appellants,

against

American Independent Insurance Company, Respondent.

Law Office of Damin J. Toell, P.C. (Damin J. Toell of counsel), for appellants. Freiberg, Peck & Kang, LLP (Freiberg, Peck & Kang, LLP), for respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Richard J. Montelione, J.), entered November 16, 2017. The order granted defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint and denied plaintiffs' cross motion seeking discovery pursuant to CPLR 3211 (d).

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with $25 costs.

In this action by providers to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Civil Court which granted defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint and denied plaintiffs' cross motion seeking discovery pursuant to CPLR 3211 (d).

Plaintiffs' sole argument on appeal is that the Civil Court should have denied defendant's motion to dismiss and ordered jurisdictional discovery, pursuant to CPLR 3211 (d), because plaintiffs could not properly oppose defendant's motion without such discovery. Contrary to plaintiffs' contention, the conclusory affirmation by plaintiffs' counsel and the exhibits annexed to plaintiffs' cross motion, which included a transcript of the vice president of claims for American Independent Companies, Inc., the parent company of, among others, defendant, did not constitute the "tangible evidence" (Mandel v Busch Entertainment Corp., 215 AD2d 455, 455 [1995]) necessary to substantiate plaintiffs' allegation that jurisdiction could exist, thereby demonstrating that plaintiffs' assertion of the existence of a jurisdictional predicate was not [*2]"frivolous" (Peterson v Spartan Indus., 33 NY2d 463, 467 [1974]). Thus, plaintiffs did not make a "sufficient start" (id.) by showing that essential jurisdictional facts might exist to warrant discovery on the issue of personal jurisdiction over defendant.

Accordingly, the order is affirmed.

PESCE, P.J., ALIOTTA and SIEGAL, JJ., concur.

ENTER:
Paul Kenny
Chief Clerk
Decision Date: October 18, 2019

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

NICA Acupuncture, P.C., Ocean One Physical Therapy, P.C., Oleg Barshay, D.C., as Assignees of Pierre Dumasais and Lunie Jacques, Appellants,

against

American Independent Insurance Company, Respondent.

Law Office of Damin J. Toell, P.C. (Damin J. Toell of counsel), for appellants. Freiberg, Peck & Kang, LLP (Freiberg, Peck & Kang, LLP), for respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Richard J. Montelione, J.), entered November 16, 2017. The order granted defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint and denied plaintiffs' cross motion seeking discovery pursuant to CPLR 3211 (d).

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with $25 costs.

In this action by providers to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Civil Court which granted defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint and denied plaintiffs' cross motion seeking discovery pursuant to CPLR 3211 (d).

Plaintiffs' sole argument on appeal is that the Civil Court should have denied defendant's motion to dismiss and ordered jurisdictional discovery, pursuant to CPLR 3211 (d), because plaintiffs could not properly oppose defendant's motion without such discovery. Contrary to plaintiffs' contention, the conclusory affirmation by plaintiffs' counsel and the exhibits annexed to plaintiffs' cross motion, which included a transcript of the vice president of claims for American Independent Companies, Inc., the parent company of, among others, defendant, did not constitute the "tangible evidence" (Mandel v Busch Entertainment Corp., 215 AD2d 455, 455 [1995]) necessary to substantiate plaintiffs' allegation that jurisdiction could exist, thereby demonstrating that plaintiffs' assertion of the existence of a jurisdictional predicate was not [*2]"frivolous" (Peterson v Spartan Indus., 33 NY2d 463, 467 [1974]). Thus, plaintiffs did not make a "sufficient start" (id.) by showing that essential jurisdictional facts might exist to warrant discovery on the issue of personal jurisdiction over defendant.

Accordingly, the order is affirmed.

PESCE, P.J., ALIOTTA and SIEGAL, JJ., concur.

ENTER:
Paul Kenny
Chief Clerk
Decision Date: October 18, 2019

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Nica Acupuncture, P.C. v. American Ind. Ins. Co., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nica-acupuncture-pc-v-american-ind-ins-co-nyappterm-2019.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack