Skip to main content


Reset A A Font size: Print

Civil Court, City of New York,

Jules Francois PARISIEN, M.D. a/a/o Taylor, Shaniqua, Plaintiff, v. ZIPCAR C/O Corporation Service Co., Defendant.


Decided: August 13, 2021

Defense Counsel: Michael Phillippou Esq., Rubin Fiorella & Friedman, 1630 Third Ave, New York, NY 110017 Plaintiff's counsel: Richard Rozhik Esq., Rybak's Office, 1810 Voorhies Ave, Brooklyn, NY 11231


The Decision/Order on the motions are as follows:

Defendant moves to dismiss this action pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(5) and 3212 on the ground that the action is barred by the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel, or alternatively, to permanently stay the action, pursuant to a declaratory judgment order of New York Supreme Court issued by Hon. Gerald Lebovitz on February 21, 2017, which found that Jules Parisien, M.D is not properly formed because he has engaged in “improper splitting of fees.” The declaratory judgment order, inter alia, permanently stayed actions commenced by Jules Parisien, M.D against various defendants including Zipcar LLC. Plaintiff cross moves for summary judgment pursuant to CPLR 3212(a) and 3212(g).

First and foremost, this Civil Court action was commenced after the issuance of said declaratory judgment. Thus, movant seeks to enforce a dispositive order to actions and proceedings that had not yet accrued or commenced as of the date of the order.

The Court of Appeals has long recognized that the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel apply to circumstances where a party has had a full and fair opportunity to litigate a particular issue which her adversary seeks to bar by a prior order. See Schwartz v. Public Adm'r of County of Bronx, 24 N.Y.2d 65, 69, 298 N.Y.S.2d 955, 246 N.E.2d 725 (1969); People v. Evans, 94 N.Y.2d 499, 502, 706 N.Y.S.2d 678, 727 N.E.2d 1232 (2000). It is inconceivable that a declaratory judgment order that is based on an improper conduct to wit, the “splitting of fees,” would apply indefinitely to infinite number of matters not yet accrued or commenced. Defendant fails to submit authority to show that an order may pre-emptively stay an action that has not been commenced. To the contrary, the Appellate Term has held that a declaratory judgment order finding plaintiff lacked a license did not apply to any future actions. See Active Care Medical Supply Corp. v. Titan Insurance Co., 66 Misc.3d 144A, 121 N.Y.S.3d 513 (App. Term 2nd Dept. 2020).

Further, defendant is requesting that this court expands the application of the declaratory judgment order beyond its explicit purview to include future actions. The declaratory judgment order plainly states that actions commenced by Jules Francois Parisien, M.D. “are stayed” without any reference to future actions. This court lacks authority to speculate and expand the application of the order beyond its explicit scope. Had the declaratory judgment order been intended to apply to countless future actions, the Judge would have simply so stated in the order or precluded plaintiff from commencing further actions against defendant.

Defendant also contends that declaratory judgment order's finding that Jules Parisien M.D. was improperly formed (due to his ownership of various entities and their practices) is of such nature that would necessarily bar him from ever seeking first party benefits from defendant. Defendant's argument is unavailing at best absent evidence that plaintiff's afore-described misconduct is incurable or is of such immutable nature that would necessarily extend to the future.

Based on the foregoing, defendant's motion for summary judgment is denied.

Plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgement is granted only to the extent of establishing that the bills at issue were mailed and received by defendant and that said bills remain unpaid.1

This constitutes the decision and order of the Court.


1.   The court notes that defendant's motion to strike the complaint (calendar no. 12) and plaintiff's cross-motion to strike (calendar no. 59) were both withdrawn at the calendar. Defendant's supplemental affirmation is rejected as defendant did not seek the court's permission for its submission.

Odessa Kennedy, J.

Was this helpful?

Thank you. Your response has been sent.

Copied to clipboard