Y.A.M. Med. Supply, Inc. v. Global Liberty Ins. Co. of NY

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Y.A.M. Med. Supply, Inc. v. Global Liberty Ins. Co. of NY

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedNovember 1, 2019

Docket2019 NYSlipOp 51801(U)

StatusPublished

This text of Y.A.M. Med. Supply, Inc. v. Global Liberty Ins. Co. of NY (Y.A.M. Med. Supply, Inc. v. Global Liberty Ins. Co. of NY) 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

Y.A.M. Med. Supply, Inc. v. Global Liberty Ins. Co. of NY, (N.Y. Ct. App. 2019).

Pincite

Opinion

Y.A.M. Medical Supply, Inc., as Assignee of Kallamni Hicham, Respondent,

against

Global Liberty Ins. Co. of NY, Appellant.

Law Office of Jason Tenenbaum, P.C. (Jason Tenenbaum of counsel), for appellant. Gary Tsirelman, P.C. (Douglas Mace of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Odessa Kennedy, J.), entered May 17, 2018. The order, insofar as appealed from as limited by the brief, denied defendant's cross motion seeking to hold the action in abeyance pending a determination by the Workers' Compensation Board of the parties' rights under the Workers' Compensation Law.

ORDERED that the order, insofar as appealed from, is affirmed, with $25 costs.

In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, defendant cross-moved to hold the action in abeyance pending an application to the Workers' Compensation Board to determine the parties' rights under the Workers' Compensation Law based upon plaintiff's assignor's alleged eligibility for workers' compensation benefits. By order entered May 17, 2018, insofar as is relevant, the Civil Court denied defendant's cross motion. Defendant appeals.

The defense that the assignor is eligible for workers' compensation benefits is subject to preclusion (see Westchester Med. Ctr. v Lincoln Gen. Ins. Co., 60 AD3d 1045 [2009]). As defendant failed to demonstrate that it had timely denied plaintiff's claims on the ground that the [*2]assignor was injured in the course of his employment (see 11 NYCRR 65-3.5 [a]; Presbyterian Hosp. in City of NY v Maryland Cas. Co., 90 NY2d 274, 282 [1997]), defendant's cross motion was properly denied.

Accordingly, the order, insofar as appealed from, is affirmed.

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

ENTER:
Paul Kenny
Chief Clerk
Decision Date: November 01, 2019

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