What did the court decide?

The appellate court affirmed the lower court's refusal to award Citimed additional attorneys' fees because Citimed failed to file its fee motion within the court-ordered 30-day deadline and did not explain the delay.

Who is affected by this decision?

Citimed Surgery Center, LLC is directly affected because it will not receive the additional attorneys' fees it sought; the insurance company respondent is unaffected by fee exposure.

What happens next for Citimed?

This decision ends Citimed's challenge to the denial of the fee motions at the Appellate Division level; further relief would require a successful application for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals if available.

Why were the motions denied?

Because the motions were filed after the court-ordered deadline and Citimed did not provide an excuse for the tardiness, the court applied controlling precedent that deadlines set by court order must be respected.

Can this be appealed further?

Possibly, by seeking leave to appeal to the New York Court of Appeals, but such review is discretionary and not guaranteed.

Matter of American Tr. Ins. Co. v. Citimed Surgery Ctr., LLC

Docket 2024-03962

Court of record · Indexed in NoticeRegistry archive · AI-enriched for research

CivilAffirmed

Filed: Apr 29, 2026 · 2 days ago
Jurisdiction: New York
Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Type: Opinion
Case type: Civil
Disposition: Affirmed
Citation: 2026 NY Slip Op 02645
Docket: 2024-03962

Appeal from a Supreme Court judgment in a CPLR article 75 proceeding to vacate/confirm an arbitration award and cross-petition for additional attorneys' fees under 11 NYCRR 65-4.10(j)(4).

Summary

The Appellate Division affirmed a Supreme Court judgment refusing to award additional attorneys' fees to Citimed Surgery Center, LLC. Citimed had been directed to file a motion for fees within 30 days after a May 11, 2023 order, but filed late and did not explain the delay. The court denied Citimed's motions as untimely, relying on precedent that court-ordered time frames must be respected to preserve the integrity of judicial orders. Because the second motion was filed beyond the 30-day period, the appellate court held the denial was proper and affirmed.

Issues Decided

Whether Citimed's motion for additional attorneys' fees under 11 NYCRR 65-4.10(j)(4) was untimely for failing to comply with a court-ordered 30-day filing deadline.
Whether the court abused its discretion in denying Citimed's motions for fees based on noncompliance with the court's scheduling/orders.

Court's Reasoning

The court applied New York precedent holding that court-ordered time frames must be enforced to preserve the credibility of court orders. Citimed was ordered to submit its fee motion within 30 days but filed well beyond that period and did not explain the tardiness. Because the second motion was filed outside the court-ordered deadline and no justification was provided, the Supreme Court properly denied the motion as untimely, and the appellate court affirmed.

Authorities Cited

Miceli v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.3 NY3d 725
Kihl v Pfeffer94 NY2d 118
Thomsen v Suffolk County Police Dept.50 AD3d 1015

Parties

Respondent: American Transit Insurance Company
Appellant: Citimed Surgery Center, LLC
Judge: Francesca E. Connolly, J.P.
Judge: Cheryl E. Chambers, J.
Judge: Helen Voutsinas, J.
Judge: Elena Goldberg Velazquez, J.

Key Dates

Arbitration award date: 2023-01-26
May 11, 2023 court order directing fee motion within 30 days: 2023-05-11
Citimed's first late motion filed: 2023-07-13
December 7, 2023 order denying initial motion: 2023-12-07
March 7, 2024 order denying second motion as untimely: 2024-03-07
Judgment date appealed from: 2024-04-02
Appellate decision date: 2026-04-29

What You Should Do Next

1
Consider seeking leave to appeal
If Citimed believes the appellate decision raises substantial legal questions, it can seek permission to appeal to the New York Court of Appeals promptly and consult counsel about deadlines and grounds for leave.
2
Review internal calendaring and compliance
Parties should review and improve docketing and motion practice procedures to ensure compliance with court-ordered deadlines to avoid future forfeitures.
3
Evaluate settlement or alternative relief
Citimed should discuss with counsel whether settlement or alternative fee recovery avenues exist, given the denial of the court-ordered fee motion.

Frequently Asked Questions

What did the court decide?: The appellate court affirmed the lower court's refusal to award Citimed additional attorneys' fees because Citimed failed to file its fee motion within the court-ordered 30-day deadline and did not explain the delay.
Who is affected by this decision?: Citimed Surgery Center, LLC is directly affected because it will not receive the additional attorneys' fees it sought; the insurance company respondent is unaffected by fee exposure.
What happens next for Citimed?: This decision ends Citimed's challenge to the denial of the fee motions at the Appellate Division level; further relief would require a successful application for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals if available.
Why were the motions denied?: Because the motions were filed after the court-ordered deadline and Citimed did not provide an excuse for the tardiness, the court applied controlling precedent that deadlines set by court order must be respected.
Can this be appealed further?: Possibly, by seeking leave to appeal to the New York Court of Appeals, but such review is discretionary and not guaranteed.

The above suggestions and answers are AI-generated for informational purposes only. They may contain errors. NoticeRegistry assumes no responsibility for their accuracy. Consult a qualified attorney before relying on them.

Full Filing Text

Matter of American Tr. Ins. Co. v Citimed Surgery Ctr., LLC - 2026 NY Slip Op 02645

Matter of American Tr. Ins. Co. v Citimed Surgery Ctr., LLC

2026 NY Slip Op 02645

April 29, 2026

Appellate Division, Second Department

In the Matter of American Transit Insurance Company, respondent,

Citimed Surgery Center, LLC, etc., appellant.

Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department

Decided on April 29, 2026

2024-03962, (Index No. 508235/23)

Francesca E. Connolly, J.P.

Cheryl E. Chambers

Helen Voutsinas

Elena Goldberg Velazquez, JJ.

Roman Kravchenko, Melville, NY, for appellant.

Short & Billy, P.C., New York, NY (Seok Ho [Richard] Kang of counsel), for respondent.

DECISION & ORDER

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 to vacate a master arbitration award dated January 26, 2023, in which Citimed Surgery Center, LLC, as assignee of Cruz Marroquin, cross-petitioned, among other things, pursuant to 11 NYCRR 65-4.10(j)(4) for an award of additional attorneys' fees, Citimed Surgery Center, LLC, appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Robin K. Sheares, J.), dated April 2, 2024. The judgment, insofar as appealed from, upon so much of an order of the same court dated May 11, 2023, as granted that branch of the cross-petition of Citimed Surgery Center, LLC, which was pursuant to 11 NYCRR 65-4.10(j)(4) for an award of additional attorneys' fees to the extent of directing Citimed Surgery Center, LLC, to submit a motion for an award of additional attorneys' fees with supporting affirmation within 30 days, and upon an order of the same court dated March 7, 2024, denying the motion of Citimed Surgery Center, LLC, pursuant to 11 NYCRR 65-4.10(j)(4) for an award of additional attorneys' fees, failed to award Citimed Surgery Center, LLC, additional attorneys' fees pursuant to 11 NYCRR 65-4.10(j)(4).

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

American Transit Insurance Company commenced this proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 to vacate a master arbitration award dated January 26, 2023, confirming an arbitration award entered in favor of Citimed Surgery Center, LLC (hereinafter Citimed). Citimed cross-petitioned, among other things, to confirm the master arbitration award and pursuant to 11 NYCRR 65-4.10(j)(4) for an award of additional attorneys' fees. In an order dated May 11, 2023, the Supreme Court, inter alia, upon its determination that Citimed was entitled to additional attorneys' fees pursuant to 11 NYCRR 65-4.10(j)(4) granted that branch of the cross-petition which was pursuant to 11 NYCRR 65-4.10(j)(4) for an award of additional attorneys' fees to the extent of directing Citimed to "submit a motion for attorney's fees with supporting affirmation within thirty (30) days and allow Petitioner to oppose motion, and the Court can decide reasonable attorney fees after the submission of papers and oral argument."

Citimed did not file its motion pursuant to 11 NYCRR 65-4.10(j)(4) for an award of additional attorneys' fees with supporting affirmation until July 13, 2023, and failed to acknowledge
or explain its tardiness. In an order dated December 7, 2023, the Supreme Court denied Citimed's motion "due to the non-appearance of the Movant at the first and second calendar calls." In December 2023, Citimed filed a second motion pursuant to 11 NYCRR 65-4.10(j)(4) for an award of additional attorneys' fees (hereinafter Citimed's second motion), which made no reference to the prior motion for the same relief and again failed to acknowledge or explain Citimed's tardiness in moving for such relief. In an order dated March 7, 2024, the court denied Citimed's second motion as untimely. Thereafter, the court issued a judgment, among other things, failing to award Citimed additional attorneys' fees pursuant to 11 NYCRR 65-4.10(j)(4). CitiMed appeals.

Contrary to Citimed's contentions, the Supreme Court properly denied Citimed's second motion as untimely. The Court of Appeals has made it clear that court-ordered time frames are to be taken seriously (
see

Miceli v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.
, 3 NY3d 725, 726;
Kihl v Pfeffer
, 94 NY2d 118, 123). "If the credibility of court orders and the integrity of our judicial system are to be maintained, a litigant cannot ignore court orders with impunity" (
Kihl v Pfeffer
, 94 NY2d at 123). Here, Citimed's second motion was filed beyond the court-ordered 30-day filing period, thereby rendering Citimed's second motion untimely (
see

Miceli v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.
, 3 NY3d at 726;
Thomsen v Suffolk County Police Dept.
, 50 AD3d 1015, 1017).

Citimed's remaining contention is without merit.

As the Supreme Court properly denied Citimed's second motion as untimely, we affirm the judgment insofar as appealed from.

CONNOLLY, J.P., CHAMBERS, VOUTSINAS and GOLDBERG VELAZQUEZ, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Darrell M. Joseph