State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Spriggs

Full text

State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v Spriggs 2026 NY Slip Op 30788(U) March 9, 2026 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: Index No: 153587/2025 Judge: Matthew V. Grieco 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.

file:///LRB-ALB-FS¹/Vol1/ecourts/Process/covers/NYSUP.1535872025.NEW_YORK.001.LBLX000_TO.html[03/13/2026 3:45:55 PM]

!FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/09/2026 04:31 P~ INDEX NO. 153587/2025 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 56 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/09/2026

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK NEW YORKCOUNTY

PRESEN HON. MATTHEWV, GRIECO PART ~OM Justice -------------------------------------------------------------X INDEX NO. 153587/2025 STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, MOTION DATE 01/29/2026 Plaintiff, MOTION -v- SEQ.NO. 001 LETECIA SPRIGGS, ASPEN MEDICAL SUPPLIES INC, CHAI DIAGNOSTICS, LLC,CHURCH AVENUE MEDICAL REHABILITATION, PC, CROSS BAY ORTHOPEDIC SURGERY, PC, FIND DIAGNOSTIC CHIROPRACTIC PC, MIDDLE NECK MED SUPPLY INC, MOSAIC DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING, PLLC, NEW HORIZON SUPPLY INC, NYEEQASC, LLC, ORTHOCARE SUPPLIES INC, DECISION + ORDER ON PHARMATOPIA INC, SEDATION VACATION MOTION PERIOPERATIVE MEDICINE PLLC, SEFWAT SHENOUDA, SKY RADIOLOGY, PC, SOUTH BRONX MEDICAL REHABILITATION, PC, U.K. SINHA PHYSICIAN, PC, ULTIMATE RX PHARMACY, INC

Defendant. -------------------------------------------------------------X

The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 001) 37, 38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,54, 55 were read on this motion to/for JUDGMENT- DEFAULT

Upon the foregoing documents, and for the reasons stated infra, plaintiffs

motion for a default judgment is denied without prejudice to renew.

On March 18, 2025, plaintiff, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company

("State Farm"), commenced this action for a declaratory judgment that it owes no duty

to pay any no-fault claims arising out of a motor vehicle collision that allegedly occurred

on August 9, 2024, on the ground that claimant defendant Letecia Spriggs materially 153587/2025 STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY vs. SPRIGGS, Page 1 of 4 LETECIA ET AL Motion No. 001

!FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/09/2026 04:31 P~ INDEX NO. 153587/2025 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 56 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/09/2026

Footnotes

[1] of 4 [* 1] misrepresented her residential address in order to pay lower premiums, which constituted a breach of the no-fault regulations and violation of the policy (NYSCEF Doc. No. 1 [Summons and Complaint]). The following defendants filed answers: claimant defendant Leticia Spriggs (March 28, 2026, NYSCEF Doc. No. 2); Aspen Medical Supplies Inc., Church Avenue Medical Rehabilitation, P.C., and South Bronx Medical Rehabilitation, P.C. (May 1, 2025, NYSEF Doc. No. 24); New Horizon Supply Inc. and Sefwat R. Shenouda, PT, a/k/a Safwat R. Shenouda, PT (July 3, 2025, NYSCEF Doc. No. 30); and Pharmatopia Inc. (July 22, 2025, NYSCEF Doc. No. 31). On September 30, 2025, plaintiff moved for a default judgment pursuant to CPLR 3215 (NYSCEF Doc. Nos. 37-50) against all non-answering defendants (i.e. Chai Diagnostics, LLC, Cross Bay Orthopedic Surgery, P .C., Find Diagnostic Chiropractic, P.C., Middle Neck Med Supply Inc., Mosaic Diagnostic Imaging, PLLC, Nyeeqasc, LLC, Orthocare Supplies Inc., Sedation Vacation Perioperative Medicine PLLC a/k/a Sedation Vacation Periop Med, PLLC, Sky Radiology, P.C., U.K. Sinha Physician, P.C., and Ultimate Rx Pharmacy, Inc.). A plaintiff seeking default judgment against a non-appearing defendant must move within one year of the default (see CPLR 3215[c]), and file proof of: (1) service of the summons and complaint, or summons with notice; (2) the facts constituting the claim; and (3) the default (see CPLR 3215[f]; Bigio v Gooding, 213 AD3d 480,481 [1 st Dept 2023]). To establish the "facts constituting the claim," the movant need only demonstrate "enough facts to enable a court to determine that a viable cause of action exists" (Woodson v Mendon Leasing Corp., 100 NY2d 62, 71 [2003]), which can be effected by 153587/2025 STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY vs. SPRIGGS, Page 2 of 4 LETECIA ET AL Motion No. 001

[2] of 4 [* 2] affidavit of a party or by verified complaint, if one has been properly served (see id. at 70; CPLR 3215[f]). The "standard of proof is not stringent, amounting only to some firsthand confirmation of the facts" (Joosten v Gale, 129 AD2d 531,535 [1 st Dept 1987]). A no-fault claim may be properly denied based on a claimant's material misrepresentation (see e.g. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company v Valera, 208 AD3d 1104 [1st Dept 2022]; Matter of Insurance Co. ofN. Am. v Kaplun, 274 AD2d 293, 298-

[299] [2d Dept 2000]). "A misrepresentation in an insurance application is material, voiding the policy ab initio, if, had the true facts been known, either the insurer would not have issued the policy or would have charged a higher premium" (Starr Indem. & Liab. Co. v Monte Carlo, LLC, 190 AD3d 441, 441-42 [1st Dept 2021], lv dismissed 37 NY3d 932 [2021]). Here, plaintiff has submitted, inter alia: the summons and verified complaint (NYSCEF Doc. No. 1); affidavits of service (NYSCEF Doc. Nos. 4-21, 23); copies of the MV-104 reports of motor vehicle accident (NYSCEF Doc. Nos. 44-45); no-fault claims forms (NYSCEF Doc. No. 45, 47); EUO letters (NYSCEF Doc. No. 48, 50); an EUO transcript (NYSCEF Doc. No. 49); an affirmation of a State Farm investigator regarding the alleged material misrepresentation (NYSCEF Doc. No. 42); and an affirmation of counsel in support of the motion (NYSCEF Doc. No. 38). Plaintiff has established proper service through the affidavits of service and additional service required by CPLR 3215(g)(4) (NYSCEF Doc. Nos. (40-41). As to the facts constituting the claim, however, plaintiff has not presented an affidavit or affirmation from an individual with personal knowledge (such as an underwriter) representing that, had Spriggs provided her true home address on the insurance application, the premium amount would have been different (compare 153587/2025 STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY vs. SPRIGGS, Page 3 of 4 LETECIA ET AL Motion No. 001 3 of 4 [* 3] Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v Brutus, 76 Misc3d 1201[A] [Sup Ct, NY County 2022]). The affirmations of the investigator and counsel, referencing the difference in premiums, are insufficient (see also Valera, 208 AD3d at 1108 ["The affidavit of the insurers' underwriter is conclusory and not supported by relevant documentary evidence such as underwriting manuals, rules, or bulletins"]). Accordingly, it is ORDERED that plaintiffs motion for a default judgment is denied, without prejudice to renew. This constitutes the Decision and Order of the Court. 3/9/2026 DATE MATTHEW V. GRIECO, J.S.C. CHECK ONE: CASE DISPOSED NON-FINAL DISPOSITION APPLICATION: CHECK IF APPROPRIATE: 8 GRANTED SETTLE ORDER 0 DENIED INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN GRANTED IN PART SUBMIT ORDER FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT □ OTHER □ REFERENCE 153587/2025 STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY vs. SPRIGGS, Page 4 of 4 LETECIA ET AL Motion No. 001 4 of 4 [* 4]