Court Opinion

ID: 9954302
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-25 21:10:54.568022+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:12:01.017015
License: Public Domain

Matter of State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v Fields
               2024 NY Slip Op 30912(U)
                     March 19, 2024
           Supreme Court, New York County
        Docket Number: Index No. 651806/2022
                  Judge: Arlene P. Bluth
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.
                                                                                                                       INDEX NO. 651806/2022
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 24                                                                                             RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/19/2024

                                   SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
                                             NEW YORK COUNTY
            PRESENT:             HON. ARLENE P. BLUTH                                               PART                             14
                                                                                      Justice
            ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X     INDEX NO.          651806/2022
                IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF
                                                                                                   MOTION DATE        07/18/20221
                STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE
                COMPANY                                                                            MOTION SEQ. NO.         001

                                                         Petitioner,

                                                 -v-                                                  DECISION + ORDER ON
                OCTAVIA FIELDS,                                                                             MOTION

                                                         Respondent.
            ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X

            The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 001) 1- 11, 12, 13, 14, 15,
            16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22
            were read on this motion to/for                                                      STAY ARBITRATION                    .

                      The petition to stay arbitration is denied.

            Background

                      This special proceeding concerns a motor vehicle accident involving respondent.

            Respondent alleges that she was a passenger in a vehicle under the control of Lynn Driving

            School Enterprises, Inc. She insists that a student driver passed through an intersection when

            another vehicle ran a red light and “T-boned” the car respondent was in.

                      Petitioner admits that respondent filed a demand for uninsured motorist coverage on June

            23, 2021 and that petitioner was therefore compelled to file a petition for a temporary stay in July

            2021 to meet the 20-day deadline; it filed that petition in Queens. Petitioner contends that its

            1
              Although this proceeding was only transferred to the undersigned in the last few days, the Court recognizes that it
            has been pending for far too long before different judges. The Court apologizes, on behalf of the court system, for
            the lengthy delay in the resolution of this proceeding.
                651806/2022 IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE                           Page 1 of 4
                INSURANCE COMPANY vs. FIELDS, OCTAVIA
                Motion No. 001

                                                                           1 of 4
[* 1]
                                                                                                   INDEX NO. 651806/2022
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 24                                                                       RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/19/2024

            investigation into the accident was still pending. Petitioner argues that by the time the petition

            was set for oral argument in November 2021 in Queens, it had not yet completed its investigation

            although respondent had appeared for an EUO.

                   Petitioner alleges that “The Honorable Ulysses B. Leverett denied SFMAIC’s request for

            leave to amend the petition and issued an Order dated December 3, 2021 denying SFMAIC’s

            petition to stay the arbitration and for pre-arbitration discovery on the grounds that the EUOs

            were already conducted and no new information was to be accepted” (NYSCEF Doc. No. 1, ¶

            19).

                   Petitioner contends that its investigation is now complete and that the vehicle in which

            respondent was traveling was not insured by petitioner at the time of the accident. However,

            instead of moving to renew and/or reargue before the Queens judge, petitioner brought this case

            here in New York County.

                   Respondent did not miss the obvious forum shopping. Respondent points out that this

            very issue was raised in the prior proceeding in Queens and that she prevailed, which precludes

            petitioner from raising the same issues here. She also points out that although petitioner filed a

            notice of appeal, petitioner never perfected it or moved to reargue or renew that decision.

                   In reply, petitioner contends that the issues in the prior petition were different and so the

            doctrine of collateral estoppel does not apply here. It claims it has presented indisputable proof

            that the vehicle in question was not insured by petitioner.

            Discussion

                   The Court denies the petition on the ground that the doctrine of collateral estoppel bars

            the instant proceeding. “The doctrine of collateral estoppel bars relitigation of an issue which has

            necessarily been decided in a prior action and is determinative of the issues disputed in the

             651806/2022 IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE          Page 2 of 4
             INSURANCE COMPANY vs. FIELDS, OCTAVIA
             Motion No. 001

                                                          2 of 4
[* 2]
                                                                                                  INDEX NO. 651806/2022
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 24                                                                      RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/19/2024

            present action, provided that there was a full and fair opportunity to contest the decision now

            alleged to be controlling” (Leung v Suffolk Plate Glass Co., Inc., 78 AD3d 663, 663, 911 NYS2d

            376 [2d Dept 2010] [internal quotations and citations omitted]).

                    Here, petitioner previously brought a proceeding in which it sought to permanently stay

            the arbitration commenced by respondent arising out of the exact same accident at issue here

            (NYSCEF Doc. No. 6 at 10). The fact is that the judge in that proceeding denied the petition “in

            full” and ordered that the arbitration should proceed (NYSCEF Doc. No. 7). Then petitioner

            came here and sought to stay the arbitration.

                    The Court recognizes that petitioner claimed in the Queens proceeding, in part, that the

            arbitration was premature and that it was forced to file that petition in order to comply with the

            20-day deadline to commence such a proceeding. But the procedure is not to ignore the Queens

            decision and just file again in another county. The instant case is about the same subject matter

            (staying an arbitration) involving the same exact parties and the same exact accident. And

            another judge has already ruled on it. In this Court’s view the proper procedure is, as observed

            by respondent, to file a motion to reargue or renew as appropriate. This Court is not Justice

            Leverett’s appellate court and this Court cannot modify his decision.

                    Put another way, by filing this petition instead of seeking relief in the Queens, the Court

            finds that petitioner engaged in impermissible forum shopping by trying to get the same relief

            from a different judge. To be sure, petitioner argues that it has new evidence that should compel

            the stay of the arbitration commenced by respondent. But this is not the proper forum for

            petitioner to seek such relief.

                    Accordingly, it is hereby

             651806/2022 IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE          Page 3 of 4
             INSURANCE COMPANY vs. FIELDS, OCTAVIA
             Motion No. 001

                                                            3 of 4
[* 3]
                                                                                                 INDEX NO. 651806/2022
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 24                                                                       RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/19/2024

                    ADJUDGED that the petition is denied and this proceeding is dismissed with costs and

            disbursements to be awarded to respondent upon presentation of proper papers to the Clerk.

                    3/19/2024                                                         $SIG$
                      DATE                                                    ARLENE P. BLUTH, J.S.C.
             CHECK ONE:              X   CASE DISPOSED                 NON-FINAL DISPOSITION

                                         GRANTED          X   DENIED   GRANTED IN PART             OTHER

             APPLICATION:                SETTLE ORDER                  SUBMIT ORDER

             CHECK IF APPROPRIATE:       INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN    FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT       REFERENCE

             651806/2022 IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE        Page 4 of 4
             INSURANCE COMPANY vs. FIELDS, OCTAVIA
             Motion No. 001

                                                          4 of 4
[* 4]