State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Active Care Chiro & Natural Wellness Ctr.

2025 NY Slip Op 31144(U)
CourtNew York Supreme Court, New York County
DecidedApril 7, 2025
DocketIndex No. 159861/2023
StatusUnpublished

This text of 2025 NY Slip Op 31144(U) (State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Active Care Chiro & Natural Wellness Ctr.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court, New York County primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Active Care Chiro & Natural Wellness Ctr., 2025 NY Slip Op 31144(U) (N.Y. Super. Ct. 2025).

Opinion

State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v Active Care Chiro & Natural Wellness Ctr. 2025 NY Slip Op 31144(U) April 7, 2025 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: Index No. 159861/2023 Judge: Lyle E. Frank Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York State and local government sources, including the New York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. INDEX NO. 159861/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 108 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/07/2025

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK NEW YORK COUNTY PRESENT: HON. LYLE E. FRANK PART 11M Justice ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X INDEX NO. 159861/2023 STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY, MOTION DATE 12/17/2024 Plaintiff, MOTION SEQ. NO. 002 -v- ACTIVE CARE CHIRO & NATURAL WELLNESS CENTER, ARD RX INC.,ARISTA PHYSICAL THERAPY P.C.,AUTO RX, BORUKHOV RADIOLOGY, PLLC D/B/A HIGHLINE RADIOLOGY, ELIYAHU'S PHARMACY INC.,EM MEDICAL SUPPLIES, CORP, FLATLANDS VOLUNTEER AMBULANCE AND FIRST AID CORPS, INC.,FRIENDLY RX, INC.,GOLD COAST MEDICAL CARE, PLLC,HOLLIS DRUGS, INC.,IRINA MEDICAL SUPPLIES, INC.,JANAN SAYYED, D.C., P.C.,MAXX SUPPLY CORP., MDCA DECISION + ORDER ON PSYCHOLOGY CARE, P.C.,MEDICAL SUPPLY OF NY SERVICES INC.,NOURSEEN P.T. P.C.,ONE TOUCH MOTION HEALTH SUPPLY, INC.,ORTHOCORE SUPPLY, INC.,PEOPLE'S CHOICE PHARMACY NY CORP, RED MEDICAL SUPPLY, INC.,REHAB TIME PT, P.C.,S AND C CHIROPRACTIC, P.C.,S & K WARBASSE PHARMACY INC.,SPRING VALLEY MEDICAL CARE P.C.,WALMED EQUIPMENT LLC,NASIR WINDLEY, IMANI RICHARDSON, SHAWN LAWSON

Defendant. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X

The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 002) 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 105, 107 were read on this motion to/for JUDGMENT - SUMMARY .

Upon the foregoing documents, plaintiff’s motion is granted in part and denied in part.

Background

On October 2, 2022, Nasir Windley (“Windley”), Shawn Lawson (“Lawson”), and Imani

Richardson (“Richardson”) were allegedly involved in a motor vehicle collision (the

“Accident”). Multiple bills from medical providers were submitted to State Farm Fire and

Casualty Company (“Plaintiff”) as a result. Plaintiff investigated the incident and as a result

believes that there is a “strong possibility that the collision was an intentional act or that the 159861/2023 STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY vs. ACTIVE CARE CHIRO & Page 1 of 5 NATURAL WELLNESS CENTER ET AL Motion No. 002

1 of 5 [* 1] INDEX NO. 159861/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 108 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/07/2025

alleged injuries of the Claimants did not arise from an insured incident.” During the process of

the investigation, Windley failed to appear for his EUOs on two or more occasions, Richardson

left in the middle of an EUO and allegedly did not return for another one nor return her

subscribed copy of the transcript, and Lawson appeared for his EUO but did not return a

subscribed copy of the transcript. In an arbitration hearing on behalf of an assignee of Lawson,

the arbitrator held that Plaintiff had not established that the Accident was fraudulent. This

holding was affirmed in another arbitration between some of the parties in this case.

Plaintiff brought the underlying proceeding in October of 2023, seeking declaratory

judgments that it owes no duty to pay the No-Fault benefits and claims of the defendants in

relation to the Accident. In the present motion, Plaintiff seeks summary judgment against EM

Medical Supplies Corp., Maxx Supply Corp., Nourseen P.T. P.C., People’s Choice Pharmacy

NY Corp., Rehab Time PT. P.C., S and C Chiropractic P.C., and Walmed Equipment LLC.

(collectively, the “Appearing Defendants”). E.M. Medical Supplies Corp., Maxx Supply Corp.,

People’s Choice Pharmacy NY Corp., and Walmed Equipment LLC (collectively, the “Javakov

Defendants”) have opposed the motion.

Standard of Review

Under CPLR § 3212, a party may move for summary judgment and the motion “shall be

granted if, upon all the papers and proof submitted, the cause of action or defense shall be

established sufficiently to warrant the court as a matter of law in directing judgment in favor of

any party.” CPLR § 3212(b). Once the movant makes a showing of a prima facie entitlement to

judgment as a matter of law, the burden then shifts to the opponent to “produce evidentiary proof

in admissible form sufficient to establish the existence of material issues of fact which require a

trial of the action.” Stonehill Capital Mgt. LLC v. Bank of the W., 28 N.Y.3d 439, 448 (2016).

159861/2023 STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY vs. ACTIVE CARE CHIRO & Page 2 of 5 NATURAL WELLNESS CENTER ET AL Motion No. 002

2 of 5 [* 2] INDEX NO. 159861/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 108 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/07/2025

The facts must be viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, but conclusory

statements are insufficient to defeat summary judgment. Id.

Discussion

Plaintiff argues that they are entitled to summary judgment on a fraud theory and that the

respective alleged failures by the individuals involved in the Accident regarding the EUO

process bars their claims. The Javakov Defendants oppose the motion for three reasons: 1) the

fraud defense is collaterally estopped; 2) there is no evidentiary proof of Richardson’s failure to

return for an EUO; and 3) the failure to return subscribed EUO transcripts is not a valid No-Fault

defense. For the reasons that follow, plaintiff’s motion is granted as to claims for the treatment of

Nasir Windley and Imani Richardson and denied as to claims for the treatment of Shawn

Lawson.

Collateral Estoppel Does Not Fully Bar This Motion

The Javakov Defendants argue that Plaintiff is estopped from summary judgment on the

grounds of fraud due to the previous arbitration hearings. Plaintiff argues that there is not an

identity of parties or issues between the hearings and this case. In New York, “prior arbitration

awards may be given preclusive effect in a subsequent judicial action.” Bernard v. Proskauer

Rose, LLP, 87 A.D.3d 412, 415 (1st Dept. 2011). The identity of the parties requirement means

that “both actions must involve the same parties or their privies.” Rojas v. Romanoff, 186 A.D.3d

103, 109 (1st Dept. 2020). Whether or not the Javakov Defendants can all be said to have privity

with the parties in the two arbitration awards, the result of those hearings clearly raise an issue of

fact that would bar summary judgment on that basis. But here Plaintiff advances other theories of

why they do not have to provide No-Fault coverage for the Accident, which were not addressed

at arbitration. Therefore, the previous arbitrations do not fully bar this motion.

159861/2023 STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY vs. ACTIVE CARE CHIRO & Page 3 of 5 NATURAL WELLNESS CENTER ET AL Motion No. 002

3 of 5 [* 3] INDEX NO. 159861/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 108 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/07/2025

Failure to Appear for EUOs

Plaintiff also argues that they do not have No-Fault obligations here because Richardson

failed to complete her duly scheduled EUOs and Windley failed to appear for his duly scheduled

EUO. The Javakov Defendants do not contest the failure to appear by Windley. They argue that

the only evidence that Richardson failed to return to complete her EUOs is inadmissible and

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

Related

American States Insurance v. Huff
119 A.D.3d 478 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
Stonehill Capital Management LLC v. Bank of the West
68 N.E.3d 683 (New York Court of Appeals, 2016)
Unitrin Advantage Insurance v. Bayshore Physical Therapy, PLLC
82 A.D.3d 559 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
Bernard v. Proskauer Rose, LLP
87 A.D.3d 412 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2025 NY Slip Op 31144(U), Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-farm-fire-cas-co-v-active-care-chiro-natural-wellness-ctr-nysupctnewyork-2025.