LLC AAO ENNINFUL v. Allstate Insurance Company, Defendant(s). (2026)

I. Recitation, as required by CPLR § 2219(a), of the papers considered in review of this Motion:

The following papers read herein: Numbered

Notice of Motion, Affirmation and Exhibits 1

Affirmation in Opposition 2

Affirmation in Reply and Exhibits 3

II. Background

The matter at hand concerns a no-fault benefits reimbursement for medical expenses incurred by Plaintiff, a healthcare provider, from Defendant, arising from an automobile accident that occurred on September 26, 2023, where Plaintiff's assignor, I. Enninful ("Assignor") allegedly sustained injuries.

On August 29, 2024, Plaintiff commenced the instant action against Defendant by filing of a summons and complaint seeking to recover monetary damages in the amount of $1,988.70 plus statutory interest, statutory attorney's fees, costs and disbursements. Defendant joined the action by interposing an answer.

Thereafter, on March 17, 2025, Defendant moved by motion seeking to dismiss the action for lack of jurisdiction pursuant to CPLR 3211, or in the alternative, seeking summary judgment to dismiss the complaint on the ground that there was lack of coverage pursuant to CPLR 3212 ("Motion Seq. #1"). Defendant alleged that the insurance policy at issue was not issued by Defendant but by Allstate New Jersey Property and Casualty Insurance Company, a separate and distinct company that does not do business or maintain an office in the City of New York (see affirmation of M. Zeleznock, Esq.). Defendant alleged that Plaintiff improperly served Defendant, the incorrect party, and that as such, jurisdiction over Allstate New Jersey Property and Casualty Insurance Company was not properly obtained (id.). Plaintiff opposed and Defendant replied.

Motion Seq. #1 was submitted on May 18, 2026 and subsequently assigned to this Court for determination on June 15, 2026.

III. Discussion

To prevail on a motion for summary judgment, the movant must show that "there are no material issues of fact in dispute, and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law" (see Dallas-Stephenson v Waisman, 39 AD3d 303, 306 [1st Dept 2007] quoting Winegrad v New York Univ Med Center, 64 NY2d 851, 853 [1985]; Ostrov v Rozbruch, 91 AD3d 147, 152 [1st Dept 2012]). The movant has the initial burden of coming forward with admissible evidence, such as affidavits by persons having knowledge of the facts, reciting the material facts and showing that there is no defense to the cause of action or that the cause of action or defense has no merit (CPLR 3212[b]; see Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]; GTF Mktg. v Colonial Aluminum Sales, 66 NY2d 965, 967 [1985]; see also Kershaw v Hospital for Special Surgery, 114 AD3d 75, 81-82 [1st Dept 2013]). "[M]ere conclusions, expressions of hope or unsubstantiated allegations or assertions are insufficient" (Zuckerman, 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]).

Only when the movant meets this burden, does the burden shift to the opposing party to submit proof in admissible form that establishes a triable issue of fact (CPLR 3212[b]; see Zuckerman, 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]; Kosson v Algaze, 84 NY2d 1019 [1995]; Gonzalez v 98 Mag Leasing Corp., 95 NY2d 124, 128-129 [2000]).

Summary judgment is a drastic remedy and should not be granted where there are material and triable issues of fact present (see Stillman v Twentieth Century Fox F. Corp., 3 NY2d 395 [1957]; F. Garofalo Elec Co v NY Univ, 300 AD2d 186 [1st Dept 2002]). The evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion, including resolving all reasonable inferences in that party's favor (see Jacobsen v New York City Health and Hosps. Corp., 22 NY3d 824, 833 [2014]). Where different conclusions may reasonably be drawn from the evidence, the motion must be denied (see Sommer v Federal Signal Corp., 79 NY2d 540 [1992]; Jaffe v Davis, 214 AD2d 330 [1st Dept 1995]).

In support of the instant motion, Defendant proffered the following: affirmation of M. Zeleznock, Esq.; affirmation of M. Thompson-McKenna (hereinafter, "Thompson-McKenna"), Senior Product and Risk Management Litigation Consultant of Defendant; affirmation of R. Ferreira (hereinafter, "Ferreira"), claims service leader for Allstate New Jersey Insurance Company and Allstate New Jersey Property and Casualty Insurance Company and a copy of the relevant insurance policy in question; summons and complaint; Defendant's answer; Certificate of Compliance; and a list of prior decisions.

Based upon her search of Defendant's file and records, Thompson-McKenna, Senior Product and Risk Management Litigation Consultant of Defendant, stated that she was unable to locate a policy of insurance covering I. Enninful, the Assignor in this action, on the date of loss, September 26, 2023 (see affirmation of Thompson-McKenna, ¶¶ 3-4). A search for the claim number 0730518826 provided by Plaintiff in the summons and complaint similarly did not render any result identifying a policy covering the Assignor (id. ¶ 5).

The affirmation of Ferreira, claims service leader for Allstate New Jersey Insurance Company and Allstate New Jersey Property and Casualty Insurance Company, averred that Allstate New Jersey Property and Casualty Insurance Company assigned the forementioned claim number and issued the policy of insurance in question with a policy number of 989 109 129 (see affirmation of Ferreira, ¶ 5). Ferreira further stated that Allstate New Jersey Property and Casualty Insurance Company only issues insurance policies in the State of New Jersey and Illinois (id., ¶ 18) and that Allstate New Jersey Property and Casualty Insurance Company is not authorized to issue insurance policies in the State of New York (id., ¶ 23).

Based on the submissions, the Court finds that Defendant established its prima facie case that (1) Defendant did not issue a policy of insurance for the Assignor; (2) that it was Allstate New Jersey Property and Casualty Insurance Company that issued the policy in question; and (3) that Defendant was not a proper party to this action.

The burden is then shifted to Plaintiff to submit proof in admissible form sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact. Plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether Defendant issued the policy of insurance at issue, as it merely alleged in a conclusory fashion that an issue of fact existed as to the identity of the policy issuer and the relationship between Defendant and Allstate New Jersey Property and Casualty Insurance Company. In light of the foregoing, Plaintiff's contention that Defendant failed to disclose whether it had received the bills at issue for the services rendered to the Assignor and whether it had issued a denial on the ground of lack of coverage is immaterial to the jurisdictional issue presented.

Therefore, Defendant's motion for summary judgment to dismiss Plaintiff's complaint is granted.

IV. Order

Accordingly, it is hereby:

ORDERED that Defendant's Motion for summary judgment to dismiss Plaintiff's complaint is GRANTED; and it is further

ORDERED that Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed; and it is further

ORDERED that Defendant shall serve a copy of this Decision and Order upon Plaintiff with notice of entry within thirty (30) days thereof.

This constitutes the DECISION and ORDER of the Court.

DATE August 24, 2026

HON. WENDY CHANGYONG LI, J.C.C.

Wendy Changyong Li, J.