On February 25, 2026, the Appellate Division, Second Department issued a decision in American Transit Insurance Company v. MTS Acupuncture, P.C. , offering important clarification on post‑judgment procedure in no‑fault matters—particularly when a judgment has already been paid and whether a provider may pursue additional attorney’s fees.

Background

The dispute began when MTS Acupuncture, P.C. obtained a master arbitration award for no‑fault benefits. American Transit challenged the award under CPLR Article 75, and in March 2023 the Supreme Court confirmed the award and granted MTS attorney’s fees. American Transit then paid the judgment in full in April and May 2023.

Despite the payment, MTS later served an information subpoena seeking additional discovery and moved to compel compliance. It also sought a statutory $50 penalty and additional attorney’s fees under 11 NYCRR 65‑4.10(j)(4). American Transit cross‑moved to quash the subpoena and separately moved to direct the entry of a satisfaction of judgment.

The Appellate Division’s Ruling

The Second Department affirmed that the judgment had been fully satisfied and that the trial court properly directed the entry of a satisfaction of judgment under CPLR 5021(a)(2). Once the insurer paid the amounts due, the judgment was no longer outstanding, and post‑judgment discovery was no longer available. As the Court noted, CPLR 5223 permits disclosure “only of matter relevant to the satisfaction of a judgment,” and there was nothing left to satisfy.

As a result, MTS was not entitled to compel compliance with its information subpoena or obtain the $50 penalty for noncompliance.

No Additional Attorney’s Fees

A notable part of the decision concerns attorney’s fees. Although the Supreme Court treated the fee request as “academic,” the Second Department held that it should have been denied on the merits.

Under Insurance Law § 5106(a), a claimant may recover attorney’s fees only when seeking payment of an overdue no‑fault claim. The Court confirmed that MTS’s post‑judgment motion practice did not relate to securing overdue benefits. Since the underlying benefits had already been paid, there was no statutory basis for additional fees under 11 NYCRR 65‑4.10(j)(4).

Key Takeaways

• Once a no‑fault judgment is paid, post‑judgment discovery is no longer available. Information subpoenas and related penalties cannot be used when a judgment has already been satisfied.
• Additional attorney’s fees require overdue benefits. Post‑judgment litigation—even if connected to a no‑fault proceeding—does not qualify for fee shifting unless tied to securing unpaid benefits.
• Courts will correct procedural missteps. Even though the trial court marked the fee request “academic,” the Appellate Division clarified the proper substantive basis for denying it.

Why This Matters

This decision reinforces limits on post‑judgment enforcement in no‑fault litigation and curbs attempts to leverage motion practice into additional attorney’s fee awards. For insurers, it provides clear support for closing the book once payment is made. For providers, it underscores the importance of confirming whether outstanding amounts truly remain due before pursuing post‑judgment remedies.

The decision further aligns with existing Second Department precedent restricting attorney’s fees to situations where benefits are overdue—ensuring that no‑fault fee awards remain tied to the core purpose of the statute.

If you have questions about how this ruling may affect your no‑fault litigation or judgment enforcement procedures, our team at Larkin Farrell LLC is here to help.