Full text
Hereford Ins. Co. v. 21 Century Chiropractic Care
Hereford Ins. Co. v 21 Century Chiropractic Care ( 2025 NY Slip Op 06022 )
<table align="center"> <tbody><tr> <td align="center"><b>Hereford Ins. Co. v 21 Century Chiropractic Care</b></td> </tr> <tr> <td align="center"> 2025 NY Slip Op 06022 </td> </tr> <tr> <td align="center">Decided on October 30, 2025</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="center">Appellate Division, First Department</td> </tr>
<tr> <td align="center">Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="center">This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.</td> </tr> </tbody></table> <br><br> Decided and Entered: October 30, 2025
<br>Before: Moulton, J.P., Gesmer, González, Higgitt, Michael, JJ.
<div></div> <br>Index No. 150314/22|Appeal No. 5079|Case No. 2024-06498|
<br><br><div><b>[*1]Hereford Insurance Company, Plaintiff-Respondent, <br><br>v<br><br>21 Century Chiropractic Care et al., Defendants, Cross Bay Orthopedic Surgery et al., Defendants-Appellants. </b></div><br><br> <br><br> <p>Roman Kravchenko, Huntington (Jason Tenenbaum of counsel), for appellants.</p> <p>Goldberg, Miller & Rubin PC, New York (Victoria Tarasova of counsel), for respondent.</p> <br><br>
<p>Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Mary V. Rosado, J.), entered October 1, 2024, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment as against defendants Cross Bay Orthopedic Surgery, Maspeth Med Supply, Inc., Multimed Supply, Inc., NYC Best Supply Inc., and Ozone RX Inc., unanimously affirmed, with costs.</p> <p>The appealing defendants argue that a failure to subscribe an transcript from an examination under oath (EUO) is a violation of a condition precedent to contract performance rather than violation of a condition precedent to coverage. However, these defendants failed to raise this argument before Supreme Court, and the issue is therefore unpreserved for our review (<i>see Pirraglia v CCC Realty NY Corp.</i>, 35 AD3d 234, 235 [1st Dept 2006]). In any event, the argument is also unavailing, as we have previously held that a claimant's failure to subscribe EUO transcripts did, in fact, violate a condition precedent to coverage, voiding the policy ab initio and warranting denial of the claim (<i>see Kemper Independence Ins. Co. v Cornerstone Chiropractic, P.C.</i>, 185 AD3d 468, 468-469 [1st Dept 2020]; <i>Unitrin Advantage Ins. Co. v Bayshore Physical Therapy, PLLC</i>, 82 AD3d 559, 560 [1st Dept 2011], <i>lv denied</i> </p>