MAPLE MEDICAL LLP v. MUTIC (2019)

The following papers were read on the motion of plaintiff MAPLE MEDICAL LLP (“plaintiff”) [Mot. Seq. 1], made pursuant to CPLR 3212, for an order granting summary judgment on the cause of action for a declaratory judgment as against defendant MARIO MUTIC, M.D. (“Mutic”), and the cross-motion of Mutic [Mot. Seq. 2], made pursuant to CPLR 3212, for an order granting summary judgment on the counterclaim for a declaratory judgment against plaintiff:

PAPERS

Notice of Motion, Affirmations(2), Exhibits A-R and E, F, K, and Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion

Notice of Cross-Motion, Affirmation(2), Exhibits 1-13, and Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Motion and in Support of Cross-Motion

Memorandum of Law in Further Support of Motion and in Opposition to Cross-Motion

Upon the foregoing papers, the court determines as follows:

This lawsuit is one of six separate litigations ¹ before this court that involve plaintiff, as the employer partnership, and individual physicians, as plaintiff's employees (“the Six Actions”). The parties in the Six Actions are all represented by the same law firms.

At the heart of the Six Actions is the same, single legal issue: whether the physician employee or the employer partnership is entitled to a distribution payment ² made by Medical Liability Mutual Insurance Company (“MLMIC”). MLMIC is the medical malpractice insurance company that issued policies covering the employee physicians that were paid for by plaintiff as their employer. The parties in the actions seek, in essence, a declaratory judgment resolving this one central issue.

This court resolves the issue in the companion matter of Maple Medical, LLP v. Scott, 51103/2019 (“the Scott decision”) by decision signed this same day. In the Scott decision, this court finds that the recent holding of the Appellate Division, First Department in the Matter of Schaffer, Schonholz & Drossman, LLP v. Title (171 AD3d 465) (“the Matter of Schaffer”), decided April 4, 2019, is dispositive of the question raised by the parties in the Six Actions. Of note, Mutic does not try to distinguish the facts in this case from the facts set forth in the Matter of Schaffer, or from the facts presented in Maple Medical, LLP v. Scott or any other of the Six Actions. Applying the principles set forth in the Matter of Scaffer opinion to the facts presented here, the court finds that, for the reasons set forth in the Scott decision, plaintiff is entitled to the distribution of the sales proceeds of MLMIC.

The court has considered the additional contentions of the parties not specifically addressed herein. To the extent any relief requested by either party was not addressed by the court, it is hereby denied. Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED that the motion of plaintiff MAPLE MEDICAL LLP [Mot. Seq. 1], made pursuant to CPLR 3212, for an order granting summary judgment on the first cause of action in the complaint for a declaratory judgment as against defendant MARIO MUTIC, M.D. is granted; and it is further

ORDERED that the cross-motion of defendant MARIO MUTIC, M.D. [Mot. Seq. 2], made pursuant to CPLR 3212, for an order granting summary judgment on the counterclaim for a declaratory judgment against plaintiff MAPLE MEDICAL LLP is denied; and it is further

ORDERED that the second, third and fourth causes of action in the complaint are dismissed as moot; and it is further

ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECLARED that plaintiff MAPLE MEDICAL LLP is entitled to the receipt from the escrow agent currently holding funds due it in the amount of $52,000. plus accrued interest, if any, as to said amount representing the pro rata amount assigned to the account of MARIO MUTIC, M.D. which said amount shall be paid to plaintiff MAPLE MEDICAL LLP within fifteen (15) days of the service of this Order, with Notice of Entry, upon the Escrow Agent; and it is further

ORDERED that upon compliance with this Order, namely payment of the amounts due plaintiff MAPLE MEDICAL LLP by defendant MEDICAL LIABILITY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, the action shall be dismissed with prejudice.

The foregoing constitutes the Decision/Order/Judgment of the court.

FOOTNOTES

1.   The other actions are Maple Medical, LLP v. Scott, 51103/2019; Maple Medical LLP v. Goldenberg, 51105/2019; Maple Medical, LLP v. Sundaram, 51107/2019; Maple Medical LLP v. Arevalo, 51106/2019; Maple Medical, LLP v. Youkeles, 51109/2019.

2.   At issue in this litigation is the distribution payment of $52,000. that is payable based on the policy issued to cover Mutic.

Lawrence H. Ecker, J.