Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000

Lobel v. Allstate Insurance

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided February 22, 2000

269 A.D.2d 502; 704 N.Y.S.2d 488; 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1976

Cases that cite this one

6 later published cases cite this decision.

Comprehensive Medical Care of New York, P.C. v. Hausknecht (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2008)
Matter of Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Wilson (New York Supreme Court, Kings County 2025)
Lee Dodge, Inc. v. Sovereign Bank, N.A. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2017)
Mew Equity, LLC v. Sutton Land Services, LLC (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2016)
Martin v. Geico Direct Insurance (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
Lanzisera v. Miller (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2001)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

—In an action, inter alia, to recover no-fault benefits pursuant to a policy of automobile insurance, the defendant appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Fredman, J.), entered March 31, 1999, as denied its motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to, inter alia, CPLR 3211 (a) (5).

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

The defendant moved to dismiss the cause of action to recover no-fault benefits on the ground that it was barred by a prior arbitration proceeding between the plaintiff’s assignee and the defendant, which resulted in a determination that there was no causal connection between the plaintiffs lower back condition and the subject automobile accident. The defendant demonstrated that the issue in the arbitration proceeding was identical to and decisive of this cause of action. The plaintiff failed to establish the absence of a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue in the prior matter (see, Ryan v New York Tel. Co., 62 NY2d 494, 501). Accordingly, the first cause of action should have been dismissed pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (5).

Since the denial of no-fault benefits was proper, the plaintiffs second cause of action, to recover consequential damages, must also be dismissed (see, Korona v State Wide Ins. Co., 122 AD2d 120). O’Brien, J. P., Altman, Friedmann, McGinity and Smith, JJ., concur.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.