FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 04/05/ :55 PM INDEX NO /2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 75 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/05/2018

Transcription

1 FLED: KNGS COUNTY CLERK 04/05/ :55 PM NDEX NO /2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 75 RECEVED NYSCEF: 04/05/2018 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF KNGS x LAKSHA TAYLOR as Administratrix of the Estate of JADA DANELLE DUNCAN, Deceased and On behalf of her Distributees and Next of Kin, and WARREN DUNCAN, ndividually, NOTCE OF CROSS-MOTON - against - Plaintiffs, ndex No /2016 Motion Sequence #: 005 EDENEZER KOF ODOOM, M.D., STEPHEN E. OWUSU, D.P.M., M.A., MOUNT ZON PODATRY, P.C., ROBERT SOLOMON, M.D., EXPRESS MOBLE DAGNOSTC SERVCES, NC., SENORCARE EMERGENCY MEDCAL SERVCES, NC., CHARLES WLBORNE and STEVEN VEGA, Defendants. x COUNSELORS: PLEASE TAKE NOTCE that, upon the annexed affirmation of ROBERT L. SABELLA, ESQ., and the exhibits annexed thereto, and upon all the pleadings and f proceedings heretofore had herein, Defendant EBENEZER ODOOM, M.D., s/h/a EBENEZER KOF ODOOM, M.D., by and through his attorneys, AARONSON RAPPAPORT FE1NSTEN 4 DEUTSCH, LLP, will cross-move before this Court at the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Kings, located at 360 Adams Street, k Brooklyn, NY before the Honorable Bernard J. Graham, J.S.C., in Part 36, Room o' 580, on April 12, 2018 at 9:30 clock in the forenoon of that day, or as soon thereafter as counsel may be heard, for an Order: a. Staying the instant litigation in its entirety and as to all Defendants in accordance with the automatic stay provision of the September 21, 2017 Order Commencing Liquidation Proceedings & Granting An njunction & (G DOCX } 1 of 19

2 FLED: KNGS COUNTY CLERK 04/05/ :55 PM NDEX NO /2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 75 RECEVED NYSCEF: 04/05/2018 Automatic Stay of Proceedings and the February 8, 2018 Order of Clarification, both issued by the Court of Common Pleas for the Fifth Judicial Circuit in the State of South Carolina, County of Richland, in connection with the insolvency proceedings for Oceanus nsurance Company, a Risk Retention Group; b. Denying in its entirety and as to all requested relief therein motion dated March 7, 2018 and electronically filed on March 8, 2018 (NYSCEF Docs. Nos ); and c. Granting such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper. Dated: New York, New York April 4, 2018 t t Yours, etc., l AARONSON RAPPAPORT FENSTEN & DEUTSCH, LLP BY: +tz ROBERT L. SABELLA Attorneys for Defendant EBENEZER ODOOM, M.D. s/h/a EBENEZER KOF ODOOM, M.D. 600 Third Avenue New York, New York (212) To: SACCO & FLLAS LLP Attorneys for Plaintiffs Newtown Avenue Seventh Floor Astoria, New York (718) KAUFMAN BORGEEST 4 RYAN, LLP Attorneys for Defendants SENORCARE EMERGENCY MEDCAL SERVCES, NC., CHARLES WLBORNE, and STEVEN VEGA 1205 Franklin Avenue Garden City, New York (516) [ DOCX ) 2 of 19

3 FLED: KNGS COUNTY CLERK 04/05/ :55 PM NDEX NO /2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 75 RECEVED NYSCEF: 04/05/2018 SHAUB, AHMUTY, CTRN 4 SPRATT, LLP Attorneys for Defendant ROBERT SOLOMON, M.D Marcus Avenue Lake Success, New York (516) ABRAMS, FENSTERMAN, FENSTERMAN, ESMAN, FORMATO, FERRARA, WOLF & CARONE, LLP Attorneys for Defendants STEPHEN E. OWUSU, D.P.M., M.A., and MOUNT ZON PODATRY, P.C. 1 MetroTech Center, Suite 1701 Brooklyn, New York (718) l docx ) 3 of 19

4 FLED: KNGS COUNTY CLERK 04/05/ :55 PM NDEX NO /2016 f fl j NYSCEF DOC. NO. 75 RECEVED NYSCEF: 04/05/2018 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF KNGS LAKSHA TAYLOR as Administratrix of the Estate of JADA DANELLE DUNCAN, Deceased AFFRMATON N and On behalf of her Distributees and Next of Kin, SUPPORT OF CROSSand WARREN DUNCAN, ndividually, MOTON TO ENFORCE - against - X OCEANUS STAY AND N Plaintiffs, OPPOSTON TO PLANTFFS' MOTON l ndex No.: /2016 EDENEZER KOF ODOOM, M.D., STEPHEN E. OWUSU, D.P.M., M.A., MOUNT ZON Motion Sequence #: 005 PODATRY, P.C., ROBERT SOLOMON, M.D., EXPRESS MOBLE DAGNOSTC SERVCES, NC., SENORCARE EMERGENCY MEDCAL SERVCES, NC., CHARLES WLBORNE and STEVEN VEGA, Defendants. X ROBERT L. SABELLA, an attorney duly admitted to the practice of law before the Courts of the State of New York, hereby affirms the following, upon information and belief and under penalties of perjury: 1. am an attorney with the law firm of AARONSON RAPPAPORT FENSTEN 4 DEUTSCH, LLP, attorneys-of-record for Defendant EBENEZER ODOOM, M.D., s/h/a EBENEZER KOF ODOOM, M.D. (hereinafter referred to as "Defendant Dr. Odoom"). As such, am fully familiar with the facts and circumstances of the within action by virtue of my review of the file maintained in the defense thereof and based upon my interactions with all the concerned parties. 2. This Affirmation is respectfully submitted in support of Defendant Dr. Odoom's cross-motion for an Order: a. Staying the instant litigation in its entirety and as to 81 Defendants in accordance with the automatic stay provision of the September 21, 2017 Order Commencing Liquidation Proceedings & Granting An njunction & Automatic Stay of Proceedings and the February 8, f { ,Docx "/76,Docx 1l 4 of 19

5 FLED: KNGS COUNTY CLERK 04/05/ :55 PM NDEX NO /2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 75 RECEVED NYSCEF: 04/05/2018 Order of Clarification, both issued by the Court of Common Pleas for the Fifth Judicial Circuit in the State of South Carolina, County of Richland, in connection with the insolvency proceedings for Oceanus nsurance Company, a Risk Retention Group; b. Denying in its entirety and as to all requested relief therein motion dated March 7, 2018 and electronically filed on March 8, 2018 (NYSCEF Does. Nos ); and c. Granting such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper. 3. Additionally, this Affirmation is respectfully submitted in support of the t Cross-Motion on behalf of co-defendant Robert Solomon, M.D. (hereinafter referred to Solomon" as "Dr. Solomon"), brought by Notice of Cross-Motion dated March 19, 2018, as well as the Cross-Motion on behalf of co-defendants Seniorcare Emergency Medical Services, nc., Charles Wilborne, and Steven Vega, brought by Notice of Cross-Motion dated March 23, PROCEDURAL HSTORY 4. On or about January 20, 2017, Plaintiffs filed a Summons and Verified Complaint in Supreme Court, Kings County. See Summons and Verified Complaint - attached as EXHBT A. 5, On or about February 13, 2017, Defendant Dr. Odoom answered the Verified Complaint. See Defendant Dr. Odoom's Verified Answer attached as EXHBT B. i 6. On or about July 3, 2017, Plaintiffs served a Verified Bill of Particulars as to Defendant Dr. Odoom. See Verified Bill of Particulars as to Defendant Ebenezer Kofi Odoom MD attached as EXHBT C. 7. On July 7, 2017, a Preliminary Conference was held in this matter. See Preliminary Conference Order attached as EXHBT D. counsel stipulated in ( DOCX } -2-5 of 19

6 FLED: KNGS COUNTY CLERK 04/05/ :55 PM NDEX NO /2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 75 RECEVED NYSCEF: 04/05/2018 i the Preliminary Conference Order to, inter alia, further specify and particularize the i i claims in the Bills of Particulars, serve authorizations for hospital and medical treatment, serve authorizations for all treating and examining health care providers, including radiology, and to respond to outstanding discovery demands. See EXHBT D. 8. On or about August 29, 2017, a petition was filed in South Carolina to fl r commence liquidation proceedings for Oceanus nsurance Company, a Risk Retention "Oceanus" Group (hereinafter referred to as "Oceanus"). This petition was filed in South Carolina because that is the state where Oceanus was domiciled. 9. On September 21, 2017, Judge L. Casey Manning of the South Carolina Court of Common Pleas, Fifth Judicial Circuit, issued an Order commencing liquidation proceedings and granting an njunction and Automatic Stay applicable to all persons and proceedings with respect to Oceanus and its policyholders. See Judge Manning's Order" September 21, 2017 Order (hereinafter referred to as the "Liquidation Order") as EXHBT E. attached 10. On or about October 4, 2017, counsel for co-defendant Dr. Solomon electronically filed with the Court and served on all parties a letter informing the Court that Dr. Solomon was an Oceanus-insured physician and requesting that this matter be stayed as a result of the Liquidation Order. See letter to Court from Laura M. Papa dated October 4, 2017 attached as EXHBT F. 11. Thereafter, counsel wrote a letter to the Court taking the position that the Oceanus stay was not applicable to this matter. See Affirmation in Support 3. Subsequently, Justice Gloria M. Dabiri (to whom this case was then assigned) directed the parties to submit letter briefs to the Court regarding the applicability of the Oceanus stay. See id. Oral argument was held on this issue on ( DOCX ) -3-6 of 19

7 FLED: KNGS COUNTY CLERK 04/05/ :55 PM NDEX NO /2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 75 RECEVED NYSCEF: 04/05/2018 January 5, 2018, but thereafter counsel for all parties were advised on February 20, 2018 by an from Justice Dabiri's Principal Law Clerk that motion papers must be filed in order to determine this issue of the applicability of the Oceanus stay. See id. 12. n the meantime, on February 8, 2018, Judge Manning had issued an Order of Clarification "confirm[ing] that the automatic stay prohibiting "the institution of further prosecutions of any actions or proceedings" includes prohibiting actions or proceedings against the policyholders, covered providers and additional named insureds of Oceanus nsurance Company." See Order of Clarification attached as EXHBT G. 13. Also in the meantime, Plaintiffs moved for a default judgment against codefendant Express Mobile Diagnostic Services, nc. See motion for default judgment against Express Mobile Diagnostic Services, nc. attached as EXHBT H. Said motion was granted on March 19, See Order granting motion for default judgment attached as EXHBT. 14. To date, in violation of the Preliminary Conference Order, Plaintiffs have, inter alia failed to remove or strike from their Bills of Particulars language that says "other respects being negligent and careless" and have failed to fully respond to Defendant Dr. Odoom's Combined Demands. ARGUMENT PLANTFFS' MOTON PAPERS CONTAN NO ARGUMENT N SUPPORT OF THE REQUESTED DSCOVERY-RELATED RELEF AND, N ANY EVENT, PLANTFFS ARE NOT ENTTLED TO SUCH RELEF 15. Plaintiffs in their motion papers sought the discovery-related relief of striking Defendants' answers for failure to comply with the Preliminary Conference Order or compelling Defendants to proceed with discovery and depositions. However, { DOCX } -4-7 of 19

8 FLED: KNGS COUNTY CLERK 04/05/ :55 PM NDEX NO /2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 75 RECEVED NYSCEF: 04/05/2018 motion papers do not contain a single word of argument in support of such relief. Plaintiffs have utterly failed to specify what directives of the Preliminary Conference Order Defendants have allegedly failed to comply with or what discovery Defendants purportedly should be compelled to engage in. Thus, requests for discovery-related relief should be denied for these reasons alone. 16. Moreover, the precedent of the Appellate Division, including the binding precedent of the Second Department, firmly establishes that Defendants answers cannot be stricken here. n order for an answer to be stricken, "the court must determine that [that] party's failure to comply with a disclosure order was the result of willful, deliberate, or contumacious conduct or its equivalent." Patterson v. N.Y. City Health 2 Hosps..C, Corp., 284 A.D.2d..d 516,. 517 (2 Dept..2001)(i 2001) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). See also Mateo v. City of New York, 274 A.D.2d 337 (1 Dept. 2000) ("[s]triking a pleading is a drastic remedy and is only warranted where a clear showing has been made that the noncompliance with a discovery order was willful, contumacious faith" or due to bad faith") (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Relatedly, it is well-settled that "public policy strongly favors the resolution of actions on the merits whenever possible." Krause v. Lobacz, 131 A.D.3d 1128, 1129 (2 Dept. 2015). See also 1523 Real Estate, nc. v. East Atl. Props., LLC, 41 A.D.3d 567, 568 (2 Dept. 2007) possible" ("[a]ctions should be resolved on the merits whenever possible"). 17. Here, failure to offer any argument whatsoever in support of their requested relief of striking Defendants' answers or compelling discovery means that Plaintiffs have necessarily failed to show that any of Defendants have engaged in "willful, deliberate, or contumacious conduct or its equivalent." Patterson v. N.Y. City Health & Hosps. Corp., 284 A.D.2d at 517. This provides an additional reason why { ,DOCX of 19

9 FLED: KNGS COUNTY CLERK 04/05/ :55 PM NDEX NO /2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 75 RECEVED NYSCEF: 04/05/2018 requests for discovery-related relief must be denied, especially given that "public policy strongly favors the resolution of actions on the merits whenever possible." Krause, 131 A.D.3d at See also 1523 Real Estate, nc., 41 A.D.3d at f Moreover, Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate that they have complied with the good-faith requirements that are a prerequisite to making any discovery-related motion before this Court. Uniform Civil Rule for the Supreme Court and the County Court (hereinafter referred to as "Rule 202.7") provides that "[n]o motion shall be filed with the court unless there have been served and filed with the motion papers... (2) with respect to a motion relating to disclosure or to a bill of particulars, an affirmation that counsel has conferred with counsel for the opposing party in a good faith effort to resolve the issues raised by the motion." Rule 202.7(a). Plaintiffs did not serve and file any such affirmation with respect to the instant motion. This is yet another reason why requests for discovery-related relief must be denied. 19. Furthermore, Plaintiffs themselves are not in compliance with their own discovery obligations under the Preliminary Conference Order. Among other things, Plaintiffs have failed to strike from their Bills of Particulars language that says "other respects being negligent and careless" and have failed to fully respond to Defendant Dr. Odoom's Combined Demands. These are obligations imposed on Plaintiffs by the Preliminary Conference Order. See EXHBT D. Plaintiffs cannot be entitled to discovery-related relief when they are delinquent with regards to their own discovery obligations. Thus, for all of the reasons mentioned above, requests to strike Defendants' answers or, in the alternative, compel Defendants to proceed with depositions and discovery must be denied. { DOCX ) -6-9 of 19

10 FLED: KNGS COUNTY CLERK 04/05/ :55 PM NDEX NO /2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 75 RECEVED NYSCEF: 04/05/2018 k THE OCEANUS STAY SHOULD BE HONORED PURSUANT TO THE FULL FATH AND CREDT CLAUSE OF THE U.S. CONSTTUTON AND THE BNDNG PRECEDENT OF THE SECOND DEPARTMENT 20. The Full Faith and Credit Clause of the United States Constitution and f the binding precedent of the Second Department mandate the application in this case as to all Defendants of the stay issued by Judge Manning in the Liquidation Order and expounded upon in the Clarification Order. 21. The Liquidation Order, which was issued in the course of the liquidation proceedings of Oceanus nsurance Company, states in pertinent part: L This Court has jurisdiction of the subject matter and is the proper venue for this proceeding The [South Carolinal Department [of nsurance] has regulatory jurisdiction over [Oceanus] [Among the] grounds upon which an insurer may be placed into liquidation [are]: ' b. The insurer is insolvent; or c. The insurer is in such a condition that the further transaction of business would be hazardous, financially or otherwise, to its policyholders, its creditors, or the public Petitioner [the Director of the South Carolina Department of nsurance] has alleged... that [Oceanus] is in a condition in which the further transaction of business would be hazardous, financially or otherwise, to its policyholders, creditors, or the public and that it is insolvent..., both of which constitute grounds for the commencement of liquidation.... T S THEREFORE ORDERED THAT: 1. Petitioner and... successors in office are appointed Liquidator of [Oceanus). 2. [T]he rights and liabilities of the insurer and its creditors, policyholders, shareholders, members, and other persons interested in its estate become fixed as of the date of entry of the order of liquidation.... { DOCX } of 19

11 FLED: KNGS COUNTY CLERK 04/05/ :55 PM NDEX NO /2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 75 RECEVED NYSCEF: 04/05/ [Oceanus] is hereby officially declared insolvent.... NOTCE OF NJUNCTON AND AUTOMATC STAY Notice is hereby given that pursuant to S.C. Code Ann & (2015), the Court grants an injunction and automatic stay applicable to all persons and proceedings, other than the Liquidator, which shall be permanent and survive the entry of the Order and which prohibits: 4) Waste of the insurer's assets; 7) The obtaining of preferences, judgments, attachments, garnishments, or liens against the insurer, its assets, or its policyholders; 11) Any other threatened or contemplated action that might lessen the value of the insurer's assets or prejudice the rights of policyholders... See EXHBT E. 22. As an initial matter, argument that the Liquidation Order only applies to litigation in which Oceanus itself is a party was vitiated by the Clarification Order. n the Clarification Order, Judge Manning stated in no uncertain terms "that the automatic stay [contained in the Liquidation Order] prohibiting "the institution of further prosecutions of any actions or proceedings" includes prohibiting actions or proceedings against the policyholders, covered providers, and additional named insureds of Oceanus nsurance Company." See EXHBT G. Thus, the Clarification Order establishes beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Liquidation Order, now supported by the Clarification Order, serves to stay all actions in which an Oceanus-insured provider is a defendant. Since Defendant Dr. Solomon in this action is an Oceanus-insured provider, this action is stayed as to all Defendants as a result of the Liquidation Order. 23. citation to Paragraph 2, Subsection f. of the Liquidation Order in support of their argument that the Liquidation Order applies only to Oceanus itself carries no weight because such argument completely ignores the Clarification Order Docx f of 19

12 FLED: KNGS COUNTY CLERK 04/05/ :55 PM NDEX NO /2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 75 RECEVED NYSCEF: 04/05/2018 Moreover, citation to Paragraph 2, Subsection f. of the Liquidation Order is a selective quotation that ignores critical language later in the Liquidation Order stating precisely what actions are prohibited. This list of prohibited actions includes: 4) Waste of the insurer's assets; 7) The obtaining of preferences, judgments, attachments, garnishments, or liens against the insurer, its assets, or its policyholders; 11) Any other threatened or contemplated action that might lessen the value of the insurer's assets or prejudice the rights of policyholders... A lawsuit against an Oceanus-insured physician is certainly an "action that might lessen the value of [Oceanus'] assets or prejudice the rights of [its] policyholders." Such a lawsuit could easily lead to "waste of [Oceanus'] assets." t is possible that this action could lead to a "judgment[], attachment[],..., or lien[]" against Oceanus or its policyholder Dr. Solomon. Thus, this lawsuit is precisely the type of action that is prohibited by the Liquidation Order. 24. Furthermore, it is clear that the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the United States Constitution and the binding appellate precedent of this Department both require that the Oceanus stay be applied to stay this action as to all Defendants. 25. The Full Faith and Credit Clause of the United States Constitution, found in Article V, Section 1, states the following: Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof. U.S. Const., art. V, The Second Department, in interpreting the effect of the Full Faith and Credit Clause upon New York State court proceedings, has stated the following: The Full Faith and Credit Clause of the United States Constitution requires that a judgment of a state court should have the same credit, validity, and effect, in every other court of the United States, which it had in the state { DOCX } of 19

13 FLED: KNGS COUNTY CLERK 04/05/ :55 PM NDEX NO /2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 75 RECEVED NYSCEF: 04/05/2018 where it was pronounced...absent a challenge to the jurisdiction of the issuing court, New York is required to give the same preclusive effect to a judgment from another state as it would have in the issuing state. Miller v. Miller, 152 A.D.3d 662, 664 (2 Dept. 2017) (citations and internal quotation t f t marks omitted). 27. The Second Department, in situations identical to the case at bar, has held that New York courts are required to give full faith and credit to orders of stay issued by out-of-state courts. For example, in Dambrot v. REJ Long Beach, LLC, 39 A.D.3d 797, 799 (2 Dept. 2007), the appellate division held that, "[a] stay by a court in another state r enjoining and restraining all claims against insureds of an insolvent liability insurer is entitled to full faith and credit, and has the effect of suspending all proceedings against date" the insured as of its effective (internal citation omitted). L n Dambrot, a Pennsylvania court issued a stay of proceedings against the New York defendant's l insolvent insurance carrier, but the New York trial court did not honor the stay while deciding motion practice. R The Second Department found this to be an "error" and reversed the trial court's decision. d. Notably, the defendant in Dambrot was an insured of the insolvent insurer, not the insurer itself, yet the Second Department held that the out-of-state court-ordered stay should have been honored and enforced by the New York court. 28. Here, just as in Dambrot, an out-of-state court in South Carolina issued a court-ordered stay of proceedings against co-defendant Dr. Solomon's insolvent insurance carrier, Oceanus nsurance Company. Since the Second Department in Dambrot held that the trial court there should have honored the stay, this Court under the precedent of this Department is bound to similarly honor the South Carolina courtordered stay applicable to all persons and proceedings involving Oceanus nsurance ( Docx 1 â of 19

14 FLED: KNGS COUNTY CLERK 04/05/ :55 PM NDEX NO /2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 75 RECEVED NYSCEF: 04/05/2018 Company or its policyholders. Dambrot, 39 A.D.3d at 799. What is more, the Clarification Order leaves no doubt whatsoever that the South Carolina court-ordered ( Defendant Dr. Solomon is an Oceanus-insured party, the South Carolina court-ordered stay is applicable to this case, and thus this case must be stayed. Dambrot, 39 A.D.3d at 799; EXHBT E, EXHBT G. As a result, the cross-motions to enforce the Oceanus stay of Defendants Dr. Odoom, Dr. Solomon, Seniorcare Emergency Medical Services, nc., Charles Wilborne, and Steven Vega should be granted and motion must 1 be denied in its entirety. _i 29. This case is also similar to Beecher v. Lewis Press Co., 238 A.D.2d 927 (2 Dept. 1997). There, the Second Department held that the New York Supreme Court erred when it failed to honor a stay issued by a Rhode sland court with respect to an insurer and its insureds. d. at The Second Department in Beecher stated that, "Supreme Court erred in failing to give full faith and credit (US Const., art V, 1) to an order of Superior Court of the State of Rhode sland that enjoined and restrained until insiu'er]..." further order of that court all claims against any assured of [defendant's insurer]...." 14 at 927. "To compel [the insurer] to continue to incur expenses in the defense of this action would violate the purpose of the injunction, which is to preserve and protect the assets of [the insurer] for an equitable distribution amongst its claimants and assureds." L at 928. As in Dambrot, the defendant in Beecher was an insured of the insolvent insurer, not the insurer itself. 30. The precedent of Beecher makes it clear that the established case law of the Second Department requires a trial court to honor an out-of-state court-ordered stay f02i35776.docx ) stay applies to the "policyholders, covered providers, and additional named insureds of Company," Oceanus nsurance not just Oceanus itself. See EXHBT G. Since co of 19

15 FLED: KNGS COUNTY CLERK 04/05/ :55 PM NDEX NO /2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 75 RECEVED NYSCEF: 04/05/2018 f enjoining and restraining all claims against any insured of an insurer. See Beecher, 238 A.D.2d at mportantly, Beecher also clearly establishes that the honoring of such a stay is mandated by the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the United States Constitution (Article V, 1). _d. at 927. The precedent of Beecher thus only serves to make even clearer that the South Carolina court-ordered stay applicable to all persons and proceedings involving Oceanus nsurance Company and its policyholders must be applied to stay this case, and that such application is mandated by the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the United States Constitution. d. at moving papers do not cite the Full Faith and Credit Clause at all. Plaintiffs only reference the Liquidation Order. Thus, Plaintiffs make no attempt to argue that the Full Faith and Credit Clause is somehow inapplicable to the issue of the Oceanus stay; instead, Plaintiffs simply ignore the United States Constitution, 32. This failure by Plaintiffs to address the applicability of the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the United States Constitution is particularly egregious when it is considered that just last year, this Department in Miller v. Miller, 152 A.D.3d at 664, firmly stated that "[a]bsent a challenge to the jurisdiction of the issuing court, New York is required to give the same preclusive effect to a judgment from another state as it would have in the issuing state" because of the Full Faith and Credit Clause. Miller v. Miller, 152 A.D.3d at 664 (internal citations omitted). Thus, it is the U.S. Constitution that gives the Liquidation Order its binding effect here, a fact ignored by Plaintiffs in their moving papers. 33. Similarly, argument regarding public policy considerations misses the point entirely. This is not a matter of public policy. Again, it is the United States Constitution and binding appellate precedent from the Second Department that { DOCX ) -12- f 15 of 19

16 FLED: KNGS COUNTY CLERK 04/05/ :55 PM NDEX NO /2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 75 RECEVED NYSCEF: 04/05/2018 mandate that the Liquidation Order and the Clarification Order be given effect in New York State. As a result, this case must be stayed as to all Defendants. U.S. Const., Article V, 1; Miller v. Miller, 152 A.D.3d at 664; Dambrot, 39 A.D.3d at 799; Beecher, 238 A.D.2d at citation to Santa v. Azure Nightclub nc., 2015 N.Y. Misc. LEXS 324 (Sup. Ct. Bronx Cty. Jan. 5, 2015), is wholly inapposite here. n Santa, there : was confusion as to precisely what insurer entity or entities were the insurer(s) of the defendant and whether a Delaware injunction applied to those insurer entities. d. at *4-*6. Here, the facts are completely different. t is undisputed that Oceanus is the insurer for Defendant Dr. Solomon and there is no question that the Liquidation Order applies to Oceanus. Also, Santa involved a motion for a stay rather than the court-ordered stay contained in the Liquidation Order at issue here. d. at *1. For these reasons, Santa is not analogous to this case at all and indeed is wholly irrelevant to the facts presented here. 35. argument regarding an alleged lack of reciprocity between New York and South Carolina law is incorrect. First, Plaintiffs cite to no New York case law authority, binding or otherwise, in support of their argument that New York should not.. honor a liquidation order from a purportedly non-reciprocal state. nstead, Plaintiffs cite to only a law review article about a uniform law and a model law. Since such a failure by this Court to honor the Liquidation Order would fly in the face of the U.S. Constitution's Full Faith and Credit Clause, failure to cite to any binding case law authority in support of their argument that there is an alleged lack of reciprocity is utterly fatal to such argument. t is the United States Constitution that is the ultimate authority as to the enforceability of out-of-state judgments, not uniform laws and model laws. 36. What is more, the United States Constitution is supported by binding New ( DOCX -13- ) 16 of 19

17 FLED: KNGS COUNTY CLERK 04/05/ :55 PM NDEX NO /2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 75 RECEVED NYSCEF: 04/05/2018 York appellate precedent from this Department clearly holding that "[a] stay by a court in another state enjoining and restraining all claims against insureds of an insolvent liability insurer is entitled to full faith and credit, and has the effect of suspending all proceedings against the insured as of its effective date." Dambrot, 39 A.D.3d at 799. This precedent has been echoed in trial court cases within the Second Department from just last year. Grace v. Castlepoint ns. Co., 50 N.Y.S.3d 25, 54 Misc.3d 1205(A) (Sup. Ct. Kings Co. 2017) (holding that full faith and credit should be given to a California order staying all proceedings related to a financially distressed insurer); 25 Bay Terrace Assoc., v. Public Serv. Mut. ns. Co., 2017 N.Y. Misc. Lexis 1822, 55 Misc.3d 1218(A) y (Sup. Ct., Richmond Co., May 17, 2017) (holding that full faith and credit should be given to an llinois order staying all proceedings related to an insolvent insurer). 37. Additionally, New York and South Carolina are in fact reciprocal states under the uniform law cited by Plaintiffs, the Uniform nsurers Liquidation Act (ULA). This means that the Liquidation Order and the Clarification Order would have full force and effect here even in the absence of the U.S. Constitution's Full Faith and Credit Clause and binding Second Department precedent such as Dambrot, 39 A.D.3d at With regards to the reciprocity of New York and South Carolina under the ULA, New York nsurance Law 7408(b)(6) states: state" "Reciprocal means any state other than this state in which in substance and effect the provisions of this act are in force, including the provisions requiring that the insurance commissioner or equivalent insurance supervisory official be the receiver of a delinquent insurer. Similarly, the South Carolina nsurance Code defines "reciprocal state" in S.C. Ann. Code (17) as follows: "Reciprocal state" means any state other than this State in which in substance and effect subsection (a) of Section , Section , {02i DOCX ) of 19

18 FLED: KNGS COUNTY CLERK 04/05/ :55 PM NDEX NO /2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 75 RECEVED NYSCEF: 04/05/2018 Section , and Sections through are in force, and in which provisions are in force requiring that the director, his designee, or equivalent official be the receiver of a delinquent insurer, and in which some provision exists for the avoidance of fraudulent conveyances and preferential transfers. 39. A comparison of the applicable New York and South Carolina laws reveals that the relevant provisions are in force in substance and effect. Thus, both New York and South Carolina treat each other as reciprocal states. As a result, the orders from the courts of South Carolina would have to be given full faith and credit in the courts of New York even if the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution and binding Second Department precedent did not already require such full faith and credit to be given. 40. Due to the issuance of the Clarification Order by Judge Manning, there is now no longer any doubt that the njunction and Automatic Stay put into place in connection with the liquidation of Oceanus nsurance Company applies to all actions involving Oceanus' policyholders, covered providers, and additional named insureds. On top of that, the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the United States Constitution and the binding appellate precedent of this Department demonstrate conclusively that the Oceanus stay must be applied to all Defendants in this case. For these reasons, it is respectfully requested that this Court grant the instant cross-motion as well as the cross-motions of codefendants Dr. Solomon, Seniorcare Emergency Medical Services, nc., Charles Wilborne, and Steven Vega to enforce the Oceanus stay, and that motion be denied in its entirety. { Docx of 19

19 FLED: KNGS COUNTY CLERK 04/05/ :55 PM NDEX NO /2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 75 RECEVED NYSCEF: 04/05/2018 WHEREFORE, it is respectfully requested that this Court: a) Grant Defendant Ebenezer Odoom, M.D.'s cross-motion to stay the instant litigation in its entirety and as to all Defendants in accordance with the automatic stay provision of the September 21, 2017 Order Commencing Liquidation Proceedings & Granting An njunction & f Automatic Stay of Proceedings and the February 8, 2018 Order of Clarification, both issued by the Court of Common Pleas for the Fifth Judicial Circuit in the State of South Carolina, County of Richland, in connection with the insolvency proceedings for Oceanus nsurance Company, a Risk Retention Group; b) Deny in its entirety and as to all requested relief therein motion dated March 7, 2018 and electronically filed on March 8, 2018 (NYSCEF Docs. Nos, 41-46); and c) Award Defendant Ebenezer Odoom, M.D., such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper. - Dated: New York, New York April 4, 2018 BY: Robert L. sabella AARONSON RAPPAPORT FENSTEN & DEUTSCH, LLP Attorneys for Defendant EBENEZER ODOOM, M.D. s/h/a EBENEZER KOF ODOOM, M.D. 600 Third Avenue New York, NY (212) f docx } of 19