NATIONWIDE AFFINITY INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA NATIONWIDE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY NATIONWIDE INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA NATIONWIDE MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY NATIONWIDE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY NATIONWIDE ASSURANCE COMPANY NATIONWIDE PROPERTY CASUALTY TITAN INDEMNITY COMPANY VICTORIA FIRE CASUALTY COMPANY AND VICTORIA AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY PLAINTIFFS RESPONDENTS v. SILVA ACUPUNCTURE DEFENDANT APPELLANT (2024)

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.

NATIONWIDE AFFINITY INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, NATIONWIDE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, NATIONWIDE INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, NATIONWIDE MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, NATIONWIDE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, NATIONWIDE ASSURANCE COMPANY, NATIONWIDE PROPERTY & CASUALTY, TITAN INDEMNITY COMPANY, VICTORIA FIRE & CASUALTY COMPANY AND VICTORIA AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS, v. SILVA ACUPUNCTURE, P.C., DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

8 Decided: March 15, 2024

PRESENT: WHALEN, P.J., LINDLEY, OGDEN, NOWAK, AND DELCONTE, JJ.

THE RYBAK FIRM, PLLC, BROOKLYN (MAKSIM LEYVI OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. HOLLANDER LEGAL GROUP, P.C., MELVILLE (ALLAN S. HOLLANDER OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

It is hereby ORDERED that the amended order and judgent so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Plaintiffs commenced this action seeking a judgment declaring that they are not obligated to pay certain insurance claims and alleging that defendant, by repeatedly failing to appear at requested examinations under oath (EUOs), breached a material condition precedent to coverage. Plaintiffs then moved for summary judgment on the complaint. Supreme Court granted the motion and issued a declaration in plaintiffs’ favor. Defendant now appeals, and we affirm.

We conclude upon our review of the record that plaintiffs met their burden as movants and that defendant failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Nationwide Affinity Ins. Co. of Am. v Jamaica Wellness Med., P.C., 180 AD3d 1379, 1381 [4th Dept 2020]; Nationwide Affinity Ins. Co. of Am. v Beacon Acupuncture, P.C., 175 AD3d 1836, 1837 [4th Dept 2019]). Contrary to defendant's contention, plaintiffs established that they had a “specific objective justification” supporting the use of EUOs (11 NYCRR 65-3.5 [e]). In addition, defendant's “ ‘mere hope or speculation’ that further discovery will lead to evidence sufficient to defeat [plaintiffs’ motion] is insufficient to warrant denial thereof” (Kaufmann's Carousel, Inc. v Carousel Ctr. Co. LP, 87 AD3d 1343, 1345 [4th Dept 2011], lv dismissed 18 NY3d 975 [2012], rearg denied 19 NY3d 938 [2012]; see Austin v CDGA Natl. Bank Trust & Canandaigua Natl. Corp., 114 AD3d 1298, 1301 [4th Dept 2014]; see generally CPLR 3212 [f]).

Finally, defendant's contentions concerning the scheduling of EUOs are improperly raised for the first time on appeal (see Ciesinski v Town of Aurora, 202 AD2d 984, 985 [4th Dept 1994]).

Entered: March 15, 2024

Ann Dillon Flynn

Clerk of the Court

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.

Explore the Network