ACADEMIC HEALTH PROFESSIONALS INSURANCE ASSOCIATION RECIPROCAL INSURER v. BRIJ SINGH AHUWALIA (2026)

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

ACADEMIC HEALTH PROFESSIONALS INSURANCE ASSOCIATION – A RECIPROCAL INSURER, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. BRIJ M. SINGH AHUWALIA et al., Defendants–Respondents.

Index No. 650875 /24

Decided: March 05, 2026

Moulton, J.P., Pitt–Burke, O'Neill Levy, Michael, Chan, JJ.

Dentons U.S. LLP, New York (Nicholas W. Petts of counsel), for appellant.

Garfunkel Wild, P.C., Garden City (Michael J. Keane, Jr. of counsel), for Brij M. Singh Ahluwalia, M.D., Robert Fekete, M.D., Shyla Kodi, M.D., Jin Li, M.D., Venkat Ramani, M.D., Anila Thomas, M.D., Angela Damiano, M.D., Lianne M. De Serres, M.D., Steven Hemmerdinger, M.D., Tali Lando, M.D., David Merer, M.D., Augustine Moscatello, M.D., Katrina Stidham, M.D., Denton Allman, M.D., Muhammad Choudhury, M.D., Abdol Majid Eshghi, M.D., Sean Fullerton, M.D., Gerald Matthews, M.D., and John Phillips, M.D., respondents.

Weiss Zarett Brofman Sonnenklar & Levy P.C., New Hyde Park (Michael J. Spithogiannis of counsel), for Raj Murali, M.D., Thomas D. Cerabona, M.D., Jonathan P. Giannone, M.D., Ashutosh Kaul, M.D., and Anthony Maffei, M.D., respondents.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Melissa A. Crane, J.), entered November 4, 2024, which granted defendants' motions to dismiss the complaint against them, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Plaintiff contends that defendants were not covered by a prior settlement between plaintiff and the institutions that defendants worked for. However, the court properly concluded that the settlement covered these defendants, as the agreement's unambiguous terms released “each of” the “affiliated physicians,” and the record, including the allegations in the complaint, establish that these defendants qualify as “affiliated physicians” of the institutions previously released (see Vintage, LLC v. Laws Constr. Corp., 13 NY3d 847, 849 [2009] ). Since the terms of the release are clear and unambiguous, there was no need for the court to refer to the agreement's recitals (see Jones Apparel Group, Inc. v Polo Ralph Lauren Corp., 16 AD3d 279, 279 [1st Dept 2005]; Musman v. Modern Deb, 56 A.D.2d 752, 753 [1st Dept 1977] ).

We have considered plaintiff's remaining arguments and find them unavailing.

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