Country-Wide Ins. Co. v Alvarez

2024 NY Slip Op 32874(U)

August 13, 2024

Supreme Court, New York County

Docket Number: Index No. 654510/2021

Judge: Emily Morales-Minerva

Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip

Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York

State and local government sources, including the New

York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service.

This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official

publication.
[FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 08/14/2024 12:59 P~ 

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 122 

INDEX NO. 654510/2021 

RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/14/2024 

PRESENT: 

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

NEW YORK COUNTY 

HON. EMILY MORALES-MINERVA PART 

Justice 

42M 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X INDEX NO. 654510/2021 

COUNTRY-WIDE INSURANCE COMPANY, 

Plaintiff, 

- V -

MARVIN ALEXANDER CASTRO ALVAREZ, NEW YORK 

CITY HEALTH AND HOSPITALS CORPORATION D/B/A 

LINCOLN MEDICAL MENTAL HEALTH CENTER, 

NEUROLOGICAL SURGERY, P.C.,SOUTH NASSAU 

COMMUNITIES HOSPITAL, ORTHOPAEDICS. SPINE AND 

SPORTS MEDICINE, LLC,ADVANCED ORTHOPEDICS 

AND JOINT PRESERVATION P.C.,METRO PHARMACY 

D/B/A SIMPLEPHARM, BROOKLYN MEDICAL PRACTICE, 

P.C.,UNICORN ACUPUNCTURE P.C.,ECLIPSE MEDICAL 

IMAGING P.C.,SURGICORE OF JERSEY CITY, LLC,PMGT 

MEDICAL AND SURGICAL ASSOCIATES, LLP, LERMAN 

MEDICAL, P.C.,NEUROTRACK, LLC,LIMA SUPPLY INC, 

MPO MS, INC 

Defendants. 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X 

MOTION DATE 04/03/2024 

MOTION SEQ. NO. 005 

DECISION+ ORDER ON 

MOTION 

The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 005) 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 

91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99,100,101,102,103,104,105,106,107,108,109,110,111,112,113, 

114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121 

were read on this motion to/for JUDGMENT-SUMMARY 

APPEARANCES: 

Jaffe & Velazquez, LLP, New York, New York (Carl J. Gedeon 

Esq., of counsel), for Plaintiff. 

The Ryback Firm, LLC, Brooklyn, New York (Oleg Rybak, Esq., 

of counsel), for Defendant SURGICORE. 

HON. EMILY MORALES-MINERVA: 

654510/2021 COUNTRY-WIDE INSURANCE COMPANY vs. ALVAREZ, MARVIN ALEXANDER 

CASTRO ET AL 

Motion No. 005 

. 1 of 12 

Page 1 of 12 

[* 1]
[FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 08/14/2024 12:59 P~ 

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 122 

INDEX NO. 654510/2021 

RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/14/2024 

This is a declaratory judgment action, pursuant to CPLR §§ 30011 

and 3017 (b) , 2 arising in the context of no-fault insurance (see 

Comprehensive Motor Vehicle Insurance Reparation Act [Insurance 

Law] § 5101, et seq.). In the subject motion (sequence no. 

005), plaintiff COUNTRY-WIDE INSURANCE COMPANY (INSURANCE 

COMPANY) moves for an order granting it summary judgment against 

defendant SURGICORE OF JERSEY CITY, LLC ("SURGICORE"}, assignee 

of the insurance benefits of defendant MARVIN ALEXANDER CASTRO 

ALVAREZ ("ALVAREZ"} ( see CPLR § 3212 [governing summary 

judgment] ) . INSURANCE COMPANY reasons that ALVAREZ breached a 

condition precedent to coverage, voiding the policy and leaving 

SURGICORE without a right to recovery, as a matter of law. 

SURGICORE submits opposition, arguing, among other things, 

that INSURANCE COMPANY'S denial of claim is untimely, and the 

subject motion is premature. INSURANCE COMPANY submits a reply. 

For the reasons set forth below, the motion is denied in 

its entirety. 

1 CPLR § 3001 provides, in part: "The supreme court may render a declaratory 

judgment having the effect of a final judgment as to the rights and other 

legal relation so the parties to a justiciable controversy whether or not 

further relief is or could be claims." 2 CPLR § 3017 (bl provides: •rn an action for a declaratory judgment, the 

demand for relief in the complaint shall specify the rights and other legal 

relations on which a declaration is requested and state whether further or 

consequential relief is or could be claimed and nature and extent to any such 

relief which is claimed." 

654510/2021 COUNTRY-WIDE INSURANCE COMPANY vs. ALVAREZ, MARVIN ALEXANDER 

CASTRO ET AL 

Motion No. 005 

2 of 12 

Page 2 of 12 

[* 2]
[FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 08/14/2024 12:59 P~ 

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 122 

BACKGROUND 

INDEX NO. 654510/2021 

RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/14/2024 

On September 13, 2019, defendant MARVIN ALEXANDER CASTRO 

ALVAREZ ("ALVAREZ") was involved in an automobile accident. For 

related injuries, he received medical treatment and/or medical 

supplies from defendant SURGICORE OF JERSEY CITY, LLP 

( "SURGICORE") . ALVAREZ assigned his no-fault benefits to 

SURGICORE, among other defendants not a part to this motion. 3 

Upon receiving verification of treatment from another 

medical provider, INSURANCE COMPANY mailed a letter, dated May 

26, 2020, to defendant ALVAREZ and his attorney, requesting that 

ALVAREZ attend an Examination Under Oath ("EUO") scheduled for 

June 19, 2020 (NYSCEF Doc. No. 095, EUO First Notice Letter). 

The letter indicated that INSURANCE COMPANY sought to "clarify 

some of the facts and circumstances surrounding [the] claim" 

(id. at p. 2). 

3 This action has been resolved as to defendant injured party and all other 

defendant medical providers. INSURANCE COMPANY entered stipulations of 

settlement with defendants NEW YORK CITY HEALTH AND HOSPITALS CORPORATION 

D/B/A LINCOLN MEDICAL MENTAL HEALTH CENTER, METRO PHARMACY D/B/A SIMPLEPHARM, 

LIMA SUPPLY INC., and MPO MS, INC {NYSCEF Doc. Nos. 64, 66). Further, by 

decision and order, dated March 12, 2024, the Court (N. Bannon, J.S.C) issued 

a default judgment against defendants ALVAREZ, NEUROLOGICAL SURGERY, P.C., 

SOUTH NASSAU COMMUNITIES HOSPITAL, ORTHOPAEDICS, SPINE AND SPORTS MEDICINE, 

LLC, BROOKLYN MEDICAL PRACTICE, P.C., UNICORN ACUPUNCTURE P.C., ECLIPSE 

MEDICAL IMAGING P.C., PGMT MEDICAL AND SURGICAL ASSOCIATES, LLP, LERMAN 

MEDICAL, PC and NEUROTRACK, LLC (NYSCEF Doc. No. 84). Finally, INSURANCE 

COMPANY confirmed that it discontinued this action as against defendant 

ADVANCED ORTHOPEDICS AND JOINT PRESERVATION, P.C. (see NYSCEF Doc. No. 80, 

affirmation in support of plaintiff's counsel, dated Oct. 25, 2023, at 3, 1 

9). 

654510/2021 COUNTRY-WIDE INSURANCE COMPANY vs. ALVAREZ, MARVIN ALEXANDER 

CASTRO ET AL 

Motion No. 005 

3 of 12 

Page 3 of 12 

[* 3]
, [FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 08/14/2024 12:59 P~ 

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 122 

INDEX NO. 654510/2021 

RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/14/2024 

Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, INSURANCE COMPANY adjourned 

the examinations under oath from June 19, 2020, to July 17, 

2020, and then from July 17, 2020, to August 17, 2020 (NYSCEF 

Doc. No. 029, EUO Cancellation Notice; NYSCEF Doc No. 095, EUO 

Rescheduling Letters; NYSCEF Doc. No. 96, EUO Rescheduling 

Letter). INSURANCE COMPANY notified both defendant ALVAREZ and 

his attorney of the adjournments via letter (id.). 

However, on August 17, 2020, neither defendant ALVAREZ nor 

his counsel appeared for the examination under oath (see NYSCEF 

Doc. No. 097, certified transcript, dated August 17, 2020 at p. 

3). INSURANCE COMPANY then rescheduled the examination to 

September 14, 2020 (NYSCEF Doc. No. 098, Final EUO Scheduling 

Letter) . 

In its rescheduling notice, INSURANCE COMPANY again broadly 

noted the purpose of the examination under oath was to "clarify 

some of the facts and circumstances surrounding [the] claim" 

(id.). At the subsequent EUO, neither ALVAREZ nor his attorney 

appeared (see NYSCEF Doc. No. 099, certified transcript of EUO, 

dated September 14, 2020). The next day, INSURANCE COMPANY 

denied all claims and coverage for ALVAREZ'S breach of a 

condition precedent (NYSCEF Doc. No. 102, Denial of Claim 

letter) . 

Thereafter, on July 21, 2021, INSURANCE COMPANY filed the 

instant complaint, seeking a declaratory judgment that defendant 

654510/2021 COUNTRY-WIDE INSURANCE COMPANY vs. ALVAREZ, MARVIN ALEXANDER 

CASTRO ET AL 

Motion No. 005 

4 of 12 

Page 4 of 12 

[* 4]
[FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 08/14/2024 12:59 P~ 

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 122 

INDEX NO. 654510/2021 

RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/14/2024 

ALVAREZ and defendant medical p rov i ders h ave no rights under the 

insurance policy, and that INSURANCE COMPANY owes no duty to pay 

no-fault claims on ALVAREZ'S beha lf (NYSCEF Doc . No. 001) . 

De fendants ALVAREZ, NEUROLOGICAL SURGERY, P .C., SOUTH NASSAU 

COMMUNITI ES HOSPITAL, ORTHOPAEDICS, SPINE AND SPORTS MEDICINE, 

LLC , BROOKLYN MEDICAL PRACTICE, P.C., UNICORN ACUPUNCTURE, P . C. , 

ECLIPSE MEDICAL IMAGING, P.C., SURGICORE OF JERSEY CITY, LLC, 

PMGT MEDICAL AND SURGICAL ASSOCIATES, LLP, LERMAN MEDICAL, P.C., 

and NEUROTRACK, LLC, fai led t o submit an answer. 

Consequently, INSURANCE COMPANY filed a motion (seq . no. 

00 1 ), pursuant to CPLR § 3215, f o r l eave to enter a default 

judgment against the above listed defendants. The Court (N . 

Bannon, J.S.C.} denied said mot ion without prejudice to renewal 

(see NYSCEF Doc . No. 069, Decisi on and Order, February 1, 2023) 

Later, on October 27, 2023, INSURANCE COMPANY filed a 

mot ion (seq. no. 0 04 ) to r e n ew a nd reargue its application for a 

defaul t judgment . 4 Dur ing the pendency of said motion, defendant 

SURGI CORE fi led an untimely answer and demand for verified 

interrogatories, subject to no opposition (NYSCEF Doc. No. 82, 

Ans wer, November 21, 2023; NYSCEF Doc. No . 083 , Notice of 

Discovery and Inspection, November 21, 2023) . 

4 Plainti ff filed a motion to r e n e w and reargue (seq . no. 003 ) on Septembe r 

29, 202 3, which was denied without p rej udice to renew upon proper papers by 

inc luding a Memorandum o f Law withi n thirty days (NYSCEF Doc . No . 77, 

Decision and Order, N . Ba nnon, J .S .C.) . Plaintiff f iled the i nst ant 

appl i cation on October 27 , 2023, with the requisite Memorandum of Law. 

654510/2021 COUNTRY-WIDE INSURANCE COMPANY vs. ALVAREZ, MARVIN ALEXANDER 

CASTRO ET AL 

Motion No. 005 

5 of 12 

Page 5 of 12 

[* 5]
[FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 08/14/2024 12:59 P~ INDEX NO. 654510/2021 

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 122 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/14/2024 

On March 12, 2024, the Court (N. Bannon, J.S.C.) granted 

INSURANCE COMPANY's motion to renew the Court's denial of a 

default judgment and, upon renewal, granted a default judgment 

against the non-answering defendants, except for the late-filing 

SURGICORE (NYSCEF Doc. No. 84, Decision and Order, N. Bannon, 

J. S. C.). Justice Bannon found that INSURANCE COMPANY 

established (1) that it received verification of treatment forms 

from certain medical providers on May 18, 2020 and May 20, 2020, 

and timely sent its first scheduling notice on May 26, 2020, 

(2) that ALVAREZ failed to appear for his EUOs on August 17, 

2020, and on September 14, 2020, and (3) that INSURANCE COMPANY 

was, therefore, entitled to judgment as against all nonanswering defendants for breach of a condition precedent that 

voided the insurance policy (id.). 

INSURANCE COMPANY then filed the subject motion (seq. no. 

005) for an order, granting it summary judgment against the only 

remaining defendant SURGICORE. 5 In opposition, defendant 

SURGICORE argues, among other things, that INSURANCE COMPANY has 

failed to establish the timeliness of its denial of the claim, 

5 In support of its motion, plaintiff submitted the Application for Motor 

Vehicle No-Fault Benefits form ("NF-2 form") and Claim Auto Loss Report 

(NYSCEF Doc. No. 094); the requests for examinations under oath (NYSCEF Doc. 

Nos. 095, 096, 098); the certified transcript of statements on the record at 

the scheduled examination under oath, reflecting defendant ALVAREZ'S nonappearance (NYSCEF Doc. Nos. 097, 099); an affidavit of Jessica Mena-Sibrian, 

No-Fault Litigation/Arbitration Supervisor (NYSCEF Doc. No. 100); an 

affidavit of Annie Persaud, EUO clerk (NYSCEF Doc. No. 101); the Denial of 

Claim form (NYSCEF Doc. No. 102); and the Verification of Treatment by 

Attending Physician forms ( "NF-3 form") (NYSCEF Doc. No. 103) . 

654510/2021 COUNTRY-WIDE INSURANCE COMPANY vs. ALVAREZ, MARVIN ALEXANDER 

CASTRO ET AL 

Motion No. 005 

6 of 12 

Page 6 of 12 

[* 6]
[FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 08/14/2024 12:59 P~ 

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 122 

INDEX NO. 654510/2021 

RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/14/2024 

has failed to provide sufficient justification requesting EUOs 

and has failed to comply with discovery demands, making the 

subject application for summary judgment premature. 

ANALYSIS 

Law of the Case 

SURGICORE's first argument that the Court should deny 

INSURANCE COMPANY an order of summary judgment because it issued 

untimely requests for examination under oath is unavailing. The 

Court (N. Bannon, J.S.C.) explicitly held that INSURANCE COMPANY 

timely scheduled the EUOs within the statutory period, pursuant 

to 11 NYCRR § 65-3.S(b) (NYSCEF Doc. No. 84, Decision and 

Order). This substantive determination cannot be relitigated in 

the context of this motion, and it is the law of the case 

(Glynwill Invs., N.V. v Shearson Lehman Hutton, Inc., 216 AD2d 

78, 79 [1st Dept 1995]). 

However, said holding does not defeat SURGICORE's remaining 

arguments, addressed immediately below. 

Swnmary Judgment 

On a motion for summary judgment, the moving party must "'make 

a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of 

654510/2021 COUNTRY-WIDE INSURANCE COMPANY vs. ALVAREZ, MARVIN ALEXANDER 

CASTRO ET AL 

Motion No. 005 

7 of 12 

Page 7 of 12 

[* 7]
[FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 08/14/2024 12:59 P~ 

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 122 

INDEX NO. 654510/2021 

RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/14/2024 

law, tendering [evidentiary proof in admissible form] to 

demonstrate the absence of any material issues of fact'" (Nomura 

Asset Capital Corp. v Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP, 26 NY3d 

40, 49 [2015], citing Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 

[1986]; CPLR § 3212 [b]; Friends of Animals v Associated Fur Mfrs., 

46 NY2d 1065, 1066 [1979] [providing movant must support the 

subject application with "'evidentiary proof in admissible 

form'"]}. Further, it is black letter law that such proof shall 

include the "affidavit" of a person having personal knowledge of 

the facts, "a copy of the pleadings" and "other available proof, 

such as depositions and written admissions" (CPLR § 3212 [b]). 

The court must view the facts in the light most favorable to 

the non-movant, giving it the benefit of all reasonable inferences 

(see De Lourdes Torres v Jones, 26 NY3d 742 [2016]). If the moving 

party makes the requisite showing, the non-moving party then has 

the burden "'to establish the existence of [factual issues] which 

require a trial of the action'" (id. at 763, citing Vega v Restani 

Constr. Corp., 18 NY3d 499, 503 [2012], quoting Alvarez, 68 NY2d 

at 324). 

It is well established that "failure to submit to an EUO and 

'subscribe to the same' violates a condition precedent to coverage" 

(Hertz Vehicles, LLC v Best Touch PT, P.C., 162 AD3d 617, 618 [1st 

Dept 2018]; see 11 NYCRR § 65-2. 4 [c] [2]) . " [A] violation of a 

condition precedent to coverage vitiates the [insurance] policy" 

654510/2021 COUNTRY-WIDE INSURANCE COMPANY vs. ALVAREZ, MARVIN ALEXANDER 

CASTRO ET AL 

Motion No. 005 

8 of 12 

Page 8 of 12 

[* 8]
[FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 08/14/2024 12:59 P~ 

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 122 

INDEX NO. 654510/2021 

RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/14/2024 

(PV Holding v Hank Ross Med., P.C., 188 AD3d 429, 430 [1st Dept 

2020]). 

However, the inquiry does not end there. 6 The governing 

regulations provide that a no-fault insurer must have a 

"specific objective justification supporting the use of [the 

EUO]n (11 NYCRR § 65-3.S[e]). 

If a medical-provider defending a no-fault-coverage action, 

as here, questions whether the insurer had a proper basis for 

seeking the EUO, the insurer must identify its justification for 

the EUO request (see Country-Wide Ins. Co. v Delacruz, 205 AD3d 

4 7 3, 4 7 4 (1st Dept 2 O 2 2] ) . In the "absence of any justification 

for the EUO, [the insurer] cannot establish, as a matter of law, 

that it complied with the governing regulationsn {Delacruz, 205 

AD3d at 474; accord Kemper Independence Ins. Co. v AB Med. 

Supply, Inc., 187 AD3d 671 [1st Dept 2020]). 

Applying these principles, INSURANCE COMPANY'S motion 

papers fail to establish entitlement to summary judgment. No 

objective ·justification for the examinations is set forth in 

either the scheduling letters, the affidavits of Jessica MenaSibrian and Annie Persaud, or the other evidence submitted in 

6 An opposed motion for summary judgment (seq. no. 005) involves a stricter 

standard of review than an unopposed request for default judgment (mot. seqs. 

001, 004) (see Country-Wide Ins. Co. v Evans, 2022 NY Slip Op 33966 [U], *2 

[Sup Ct, NY County 2022]). 

654510/2021 COUNTRY-WIDE INSURANCE COMPANY vs. ALVAREZ, MARVIN ALEXANDER 

CASTRO ET AL 

Motion No. 005 

9 of 12 

Page 9 of 12 

[* 9]
[FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 08/14/2024 12:59 P~ 

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 122 

INDEX NO. 654510/2021 

RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/14/2024 

support of the instant motion (see Country-Wide Ins. Co. v 

Evans, 2022 NY Slip Op 33966 [U] [Sup Ct, NY County 2022]) . 

INSURANCE COMPANY's conclusory assertion that it seeks 

clarification about the facts of defendant ALVAREZ's car 

accident -- without indication of what facts are in question, or 

why -- is not sufficient (see Delacruz, 205 AD3d at 473). 

While an insurer's reasoning for an examination under oath need 

not be lengthy or overly detailed, the insurer must be specific 

enough to show that the request is not routine or arbitrary (see 

Kemper Indep. Ins. Co. v Accurate Monitoring, LLC, 73 Misc.3d 

585, 588 [Sup Ct, NY County 2021]). 

INSURANCE COMPANY is correct that a failure to state the 

objective justification in the request for an EUO does not alone 

render the request improper. However, insurers must provide 

justification for the EUO process thereafter -- "whether during 

the claims-verification process or in later litigationn which 

INSURANCE COMPANY has failed to do (Evans, 2022 NY Slip Op 

33966[U], *3, citing Delacruz, 205 AD3d at 473-474). 

Finally, contrary to INURANCE COMPANY's contention, 

SURGICORE is not required to "lodge any objection . within a 

specific time frame," particularly when the insurer, as here, 

provides no justification for the examination under oath 

(Delacruz, 205 AD3d at 474; Country-Wide Ins. Co. v Alicea, 183 

NYS3d 848 [1st Dept 2023]). 

654510/2021 COUNTRY-WIDE INSURANCE COMPANY vs. ALVAREZ, MARVIN ALEXANDER 

CASTRO ET AL 

Motion No. 005 

10 of 12 

Page 10 of 12 

[* 10]
[FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 08/14/2024 12:59 P~ 

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 122 

INDEX NO. 654510/2021 

RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/14/2024 

In any event, SURGICORE appears correct that INSURANCE 

COMPANY's motion for an order of summary judgment is premature 

(see CPLR § 3212 [f]). Prior to this motion, SURGICORE served 

discovery requests on INSURANCE COMPANY seeking information 

concerning the purpose of the EUOs and INSURANCE COMPANY has yet 

to respond (compare Country-Wide Ins. Co. v Henderson, 77 Misc3d 

1218 (A), *2 [Sup Ct, NY County 2022] [holding: summary judgment 

motion premature where plaintiff moved for summary judgment two 

months after defendant filed answer and before having provided 

discovery being sought], with Country-Wide Ins. Co. v Duff, 77 

Misc3d 1216(A), *3 [Sup Ct, NY County 2022] [holding: summary 

judgment motion not premature where one-year prior to plaintiff 

moving for summary judgment, defendant served discovery request 

on plaintiff, and defendants had not only received responses to 

those requests, but objected to them as incomplete, and took no 

further action to compel]). "The reason for the EUO request is 

a fact essential to justify opposition to plaintiff's summary 

judgment motion, [that is] exclusively within the knowledge and 

control of [plaintiff]" (American Tr. Ins. Co. v Jaga Med. 

Servs. P.C., 128 AD3d 441, 441 [1st Dept 2015]; Alicea, 183 

NYS3d at 848). 

654510/2021 COUNTRY-WIDE INSURANCE COMPANY vs. ALVAREZ, MARVIN ALEXANDER 

CASTRO ET AL 

Motion No. 005 

11 of 12 

Page 11 of 12 

[* 11]
, [FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 08/14/2024 12:59 P~ 

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 122 

INDEX NO. 654510/2021 

RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/14/2024 

Accordingly, it is 

ORDERED that plaintiff COUNTRY-WIDE INSURANCE COMPANY'S 

motion (seq. no. 005) for summary judgment 1s denied in its 

entirety; and it is further 

ORDERED that the matter is scheduled for a virtual preliminary 

conference on October 15, 2024, at 11:00 A.M. in Part 42. 

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT. 

CHECK ONE: 

APPLICATION: 

CHECK IF APPROPRIATE: ~ CASE DISPOSED 

GRANTED 0 DENIED 

SETTLE ORDER 

INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN 

~4{j!;h£22f?t~ EMI MORALES-MINERVA, J.S.C. 

NON-FINAL DISPOSITION 

GRANTED IN PART 

SUBMIT ORDER 

FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT 

□ OTHER 

□ REFERENCE 

654510/2021 COUNTRY-WIDE INSURANCE COMPANY vs. ALVAREZ, MARVIN ALEXANDER 

CASTRO ET AL 

Page 12 of 12 

Motion No. 005 

12 of 12 [* 12]