INEX No /06 SHORT FORM ORDER HON. STEPHEN A. BUCARI

Transcription

1 SHORT FORM ORDER Present: SUPREME COURT - STATE OF NEW YORK HON. STEPHEN A. BUCARI Justice ALLSTA TE INSURNCE COMPANY ALLSTATE INEMNITY COMPANY DEERBROOK INSURNCE COMPANY Plaintiffs TRIAL/lAS, PART 3 NASSAU COUNTY INEX No /06 MOTION DATE: Sept. 23, 2009 Motion Sequence # 012 -against- PLAINIEW PROFESSIONAL MEDICAL, BRUCE BROMBERG, D., RAAEL GARCIA, M., PPC HEAL THCARE MANAGEMENT, INC. and HAND ON MANAGEMENT LTD. Defendants. The following papers read on this motion: Order to Show Cause... X Affidavit in Opposition... X Reply Affirmation... X This motion, by plaintiffs, brought on by order to show cause, for an order: Pursuant to CPLR 6313(a) issuing a Temporary Restraining Order immediately restraining the defendant Bruce Bromberg, from sellng, liquidating, transferring, converting to cash or otherwise conveying any and all assets including defendant' s propert located at 54

2 ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, et al Index no /06 is determined as hereinafter set forth. Country Drive, Plainview New York, pending the hearing and the resolution of plaintiff s motion for a Preliminary Injunction; Pursuant to CPLR ~6311 issuing a Preliminary Injunction precluding and barring the defendant, Bruce Bromberg, from sellng, liquidating, transferring, converting to cash or otherwise conveying any and all assets including defendant' s propert located at 54 Country Drive, Plainview New York pending the resolution of the subject action; anc F or such other and further relief that this Court deems just, proper and equitable FACTS This is an action in which the plaintiff Allstate alleges that the defendants have sought to misrepresent their services to perpetrate an extended fraud against the No- Fault system and Allstate by the creation of a sham professional corporation and submission of numerous bils which are both deceptive and fraudulent. The defendant Plainview filed its Certificate of Incorporation on May 8, According to the On-Line Verification website of the New York Department of Education, defendant Rafael Garcia, M.D. is listed as the owner. The facilty has locations in both Plainview and Baldwin. From April 4, 2002, through 2006 Plainview biled Allstate for No- Fault bils for treatment allegedly rendered to No-Fault patients. Rafael Garcia, a licensed medical doctor, testified in a deposition that he was not the owner of this medical facilty but merely an employee. Bruce Bromberg, D.C. is a licensed chiropractor in the State of New York and is alleged to be the true owner of Plainview. PPC and Handon are management companies owned by Bruce Bromberg and perform services for Plainview. Counsel for the plaintiffs avers that the defendants were involved in a fraudulent scheme, in contravention of pertinent case law and related statutory law, to defraud the plaintiffs out of payments to the defendants under the No Fault Law.

3 ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, et al Index no /06 This Court, by a Short Form Order of September , directed the following: Accordingly, plaintiffs ' motion for summary judgment against defendants Plainview and Rafael Garcia as to payments made to Plainview from April, 2002 to the present is ranted, and it is hereby declared that plaintiffs have no obligation to pay any pending previously denied or future claims submitted to said insurers by Plainview for service provided during that time period. Pursuant to such finding, plaintiffs are eranted summar judgment against defendants Plainview and Rafael Garcia on their second cause of action for unjust enrichment/restitution in an amount to be determined at trial at which inter alia Bruce Bromberg s ownership interest in, and control of, Plainview, and that of his management company, Handon Management Ltd., shall be determined and their liabilty in damages as and for the claims asserted by plaintiffs herein assessed" Counsel argues that, with that determination, the plaintiff must be restrained from the transfer of any propert. He further argues that the defendants owe the plaintiff more than $ , and that the defendant Bromberg be restrained from sellng any of his assets so that the plaintiff may pursue any potential judgment due it. The defendant Bromberg disputes the plaintiff s allegation that he created a fraudulent scheme and that he was not a part to the State hearing that annulled the defendant Plainview s Certificate of Incorporation. In reply, the plaintiffs attorney repeats his arguments as to the plaintiffs entitlement to a preliminary injunction and the defendants ' liabilty to the plaintiff on the legal issue in this action. Counsel asserts that, due to the defendant Bromberg s control over the proceeds and assets ofthe corporations, irreparable harm would be suffered by the plaintiff ifhe were not enjoined from disposing of assets; and he would not suffer prejudice ifhe were enjoined from said sellng or otherwise disposing of them. DECISION To prevail on a motion for a preliminary injunction, a movant must establish a likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable

4 ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, et al Index no /06 injury in the absence of an injunction, and a balance of equities in its favor Gerstner v Katz, 38 AD3d 835, 835 NYS2d 203, 2 Dept., 2007). CPLR 6301 provides, in pertinent part, as follows: A preliminary injunction may be granted in any action where it appears that the defendant threatens or is about to do, or is doing or procuring or suffering to be done, an act in violation of the plaintiff's rights respecting the subject of the action, and tending to render the judgment ineffectual or in any action where the plaintiff has demanded and would be entitled to a judgment restraining the defendant from the commission or continuance of an act, which, if committed or continued during the pendency of the action, would produce injury to the plaintiff' The plaintiff herein seeks, in effect, a prohibition against the defendant Bromberg from his disposal of any of his own propert(ies) to render any judgment uncollectable. The record herein is bare of any allegation or proof that Bromberg has transferred any propert, or offered propert for sale or assignment. Indeed, the plaintiff s assertion of irreparable harm absent the granting of a preliminary injunction, amounts to no more than a suspicion that assets may be transferred. In effect, the plaintiff herein seeks an attachment, which has stringent requirements that the plaintiff cannot demonstrate (see CPLR 6201). Case law suggests that a plaintiff which seeks such relief under these circumstances may be better served to seek an attachment (see Credit A ricole Indosuez v Ross Kred.i, 94 NY2d 541, 708 NYS2d ).

5 ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, et al Index no /06 Accordingly, the plaintiffhas not satisfied the criterion that irreparable harm or injury wil be suffered absent the grant of injunctive relief. That failure is fatal to the application and a determination as to the other criteria is unnecessary. The motion is denied Dated DEC ENTERED DEe NASSAU COUNTY COUNTY CLERK' S OFFICE