NEW FROM QUEENS SUPREME

actually, it’s relatively old; I just missed it.

St. Paul Travelers Ins. Co. v Nandi, 2007 NY Slip Op 51154(U)

Here’s the short version:

In this action for declaratory judgment and to recover damages for fraud and unjust enrichment, plaintiff St. Paul Travelers Insurance Company (Travelers) seeks an order (1) staying all no-fault collection lawsuits presently being prosecuted by defendant Dipak Nandi and co-defendants professional corporations against Travelers, pursuant to CPLR 2201; (2) granting a preliminary injunction enjoining the defendants from commencing future lawsuits against Travelers seeking reimbursement of no-fault benefits for acupuncture services pursuant to Insurance Law § 5101 et. seq. and the regulations promulgated thereunder, pending the determination of this action. Defendants cross-move in opposition and seek an order lifting any previously imposed stays affecting Civil Court lawsuits and dismissing the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(4),(5) and (7).

Accordingly, defendants’ cross motion to dismiss the complaint is granted to the extent that plaintiff’s causes of action to recover damages for fraud and unjust enrichment is limited to payments it made to the defendant on or after April 4, 2002. The request for punitive damages is dismissed. The remainder of defendant’s cross motion is denied. Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction enjoining all No-Fault collection actions for acupuncture services presently pending between the parties in the New York City Civil Courts and in the Nassau and Suffolk County District Courts, pending the determination of this action, is granted. That branch of plaintiff’s motion which seeks a preliminary injunction enjoining the defendants from commencing future lawsuits against Travelers seeking reimbursement of no-fault benefits for acupuncture services pursuant to Insurance Law § 5101 et. seq. and the regulations promulgated thereunder, pending the determination of this action, is granted. Plaintiffs are directed to post a bond in an amount to be set forth in the order to be entered hereon. The parties are to submit affidavits to the court as to the amount of the bond, along with the proposed order.

There are no comments yet. Be the first and leave a response!

Leave a Reply


Wanting to leave an <em>phasis on your comment?

Trackback URL http://www.nofaultparadise.org/2007/06/24/new-from-queens-supreme/trackback/