406 MEDICAL PC, AAAMG LEASING CORP, AAG PHYSICAL THERAPY, ADVANCE HEALTH RX INC, ADVANCED RECOVERY EQUIPMENT AND SUPPLIES LLC, ADVANTAGE PHARMACY, RIAZ AHMAD MD, ALL CITY FAMILY HEALTHCARE CENTER INC, ARGO MEDICAL EQUIPMENT CORP., AV CHEMISTS LLC, BAY RIDGE ORTHOPEDIC ASSOCIATES PC, BITACHON DIAGNOSTICS INC, BL PAIN MANAGEMENT PLLC, BOWEN, MD PLLC, BROOKDALE UNIV. HOSP & MED. CENTER, CADS ANESTHESIA SERVICES PLLC, CHRISTINE SHORTER, FNP-BC, CITIMED COMPLETE MEDICAL CARE, EAST COAST MED GROUP, GEVORINA INC, HEALTHCARE MEDICAL SERVICES PLLC, HUDSON REGIONAL HOSPITAL, INTERVENTIONAL PHYSICAL MEDICINE AND REHAB OF NEW YORK, LIBERTY CHEMISTS INC, LR MEDICAL PLLC, METROPOLITAN MEDICAL & SURGICAL PC, NYC DISCOUNT PHARMACY INC, OPTIMUM HEALTH ACUPUNCTURE PC, ORTHOPAEDICS, SPINE AND SPORTS MEDICINE, LLC, PARS MEDICAL PC, REBOUND ACUPUNCTURE PC, RIDGEWOOD DIAGNOSTIC LABORATORY LLC, ROCKAWAYS ASC DEVELOPMENT, SANITAS MEDICAL PC, SCOB, SEDATION VACATION PERIOPERATIVE MEDICINE, PLLC, SHEILA SOMAN MD, SHERNET BARRETT FNP-BC, SINAI DIAGNOSTICS LLC, STEPHEN DANYKO PHD D/B/A DANYKO TESTING SERVICES, and TRIBOROUGH ASC LLC, Defendants.
Index No. 650408/2023. Supreme Court, New York County. Decided August 13, 2025.
Correia, Conway & Stiefeld, White Plains, NY (Asher Grossman of counsel), for plaintiffs. The Rybak Firm, PLLC, Brooklyn, NY (Oleg Rybak of counsel), for appearing defendants.
GERALD LEBOVITS, J.
In this no-fault-insurance-coverage action, plaintiffs move for summary judgment under CPLR 3212 against the remaining appearing defendants, each of which is a medical-provider assignee of the alleged injured person, defendant Quentin Branch. The motion is denied.
Plaintiffs argue that they are entitled to deny the no-fault claims submitted by these providers, because Branch materially misrepresented his residence and the garaging location of his vehicle in obtaining the underlying no-fault policy. Plaintiffs have not sufficiently shown as a matter of law that any misrepresentations were material. To establish materiality, plaintiffs rely on a brief underwriter’s affidavit (NYSCEF No. 77), without providing supporting documentation such as underwriting manuals or the like. But as this court has held at least three times before in actions brought by these plaintiffs or their affiliates, that showing is insufficient. [1]
Indeed, the Appellate Division, First Department, has expressly held twice in the last three years that on summary judgment, an underwriter’s affidavit does not, without more, establish the materiality of a no-fault insured’s misrepresentation of the residence/garaging location. (See State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Able Chiropractic, P.C., 234 AD3d 537, 537 [1st Dept 2025]; Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Valera, 208 AD3d 1104, 1104 [1st Dept 2022].) Indeed, defendants cite one of these decisions in their opposition papers. (See NYSCEF No. 82 at ¶¶ 23-24, citing Valera, 208 AD3d 1104.) Plaintiffs nonetheless fail to acknowledge this on-point contrary authority — let alone attempt to distinguish it or identify good-faith reasons to believe it should be changed.
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment is denied; and it is further
ORDERED that the parties shall appear before this court for a telephonic preliminary conference on August 27, 2025.