January 24, 2012
Q-B Jewish Med. Rehabilitation, P.C. v Allstate Ins. Co. (2012 NY Slip Op 50152(U))
https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/q-b-jewish-med-rehabilitation-p-c-v-allstate-ins-co-2012-ny-slip-op50152u/
- Decided
- January 24, 2012
- Citation
- 2012 NY Slip Op 50152(U) · 34 Misc 3d 145(A)
- Posture
- Other motion
- Outcome
- Insurer prevailed
- Legal questions
- Mallela defense: preclusion and discovery (see the maps)
Posture, outcome, issues and treatment by other decisions are Beynenson Law’s classification. Treatment labels are assigned by a language model reading the citing decision; negative and appeal-history labels are checked by a second reader.
Summary
Editorial summary by Beynenson Law, not part of the court’s decision.
Reported in New York Official Reports at Q-B Jewish Med. Rehabilitation, P.C. v Allstate Ins. Co. (2012 NY Slip Op 50152(U))
| Q-B Jewish Med. Rehabilitation, P.C. v Allstate Ins. Co. |
| 2012 NY Slip Op 50152(U) [34 Misc 3d 145(A)] |
| Decided on January 24, 2012 |
| Appellate Term, Second Department |
| Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. |
| This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports. |
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
APPELLATE TERM: 2nd, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : WESTON, J.P., PESCE and RIOS, JJ
2010-2135 Q C.
against
Allstate Insurance Company, Respondent.
Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (William A. Viscovich, J.), entered February 9, 2010. The order, insofar as appealed from, granted defendant’s motion to vacate the notice of trial and compel plaintiff to provide responses to its discovery demands to the extent of conditionally vacating the notice of trial if plaintiff failed to, among other things, provide defendant with W-2 and 1099 forms for named individuals, as well as plaintiff’s federal tax returns and schedules by the time the case “come[s] up for trial.”
ORDERED that the order, insofar as appealed from, is affirmed, without costs.
In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, plaintiff appeals from so much of an order as granted defendant’s motion to vacate the notice of trial and compel plaintiff to provide responses to its discovery demands to the extent of conditionally vacating the notice of trial if plaintiff failed to, among other things, provide defendant with W-2 and 1099 forms for named individuals, as well as plaintiff’s federal tax returns and schedules by the time the case “come[s] up for trial.”
The notice of trial and certificate of readiness filed by plaintiff contained the erroneous statement that discovery had been completed. As a result, we find no basis to disturb the Civil Court’s order which granted the branch of defendant’s motion seeking to vacate the notice of trial and strike the matter from the trial calendar to the extent of conditionally striking the notice of trial so plaintiff could provide the discovery which defendant had requested (see Citywide Social Work & Psychological Servs., PLLC v Autoone Ins. Co., 32 Misc 3d 130[A], 2011 NY Slip Op 51308[U] [App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2011]; Allstate Social Work & Psychological Svcs, PLLC v GEICO Gen. Ins. Co., 29 Misc 3d 142[A], 2010 NY Slip Op 52162[U] [App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2010]).
Defendant set forth detailed and specific reasons for believing that plaintiff is a professional service corporation which fails to comply with applicable state or local licensing laws and, thus, ineligible to recover no-fault benefits (see State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v Mallela, 4 NY3d 313 [2005]), a defense which is not precluded (Multiquest, P.L.L.C. v Allstate [*2]Ins. Co., 17 Misc 3d 37 [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2007]). By obtaining discovery of certain documents, such as plaintiff’s financial and tax records, as well as W-2 or 1099 forms for individuals who provided the services at issue, defendant will be able to ascertain whether plaintiff is ineligible for reimbursement of no-fault benefits (see e.g. CPLR 3101 [a]; One Beacon Ins. Group, LLC v Midland Med. Care, P.C., 54 AD3d 738 [2008]; see also Q-B Jewish Med. Rehabilitation, P.C. v Allstate Ins. Co., 32 Misc 3d 139[A], 2011 NY Slip Op 51551[U] [App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2011]).
Accordingly, the order, insofar as appealed from, is affirmed.
Weston, J.P., Pesce and Rios, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: January 24, 2012
Legal questions
A question of no-fault law this decision rules on, from our Legal Questions pages. Bars count the decisions on the question by year and court, coloured by category; circles are this decision and the decisions on the question it cites or that cite it. Point at a bar or circle for details. The categories and summaries are Beynenson Law’s classification, made by a language model and checked by a second reading.
May the insurer raise and investigate a Mallela (fraudulent incorporation) defense, or is it precluded, waived or denied discovery?
This decision: Insurer may raise or investigate the Mallela defense here
Upheld compelled production of tax returns and W-2/1099 forms because the insurer gave detailed, specific reasons to believe the provider was ineligible under licensing laws, a defense that is not precluded.
Of the 136 decisions on this question in the Second Department courts and the Court of Appeals, 112 (this one included) are in the same category.
Cited in this decision
A label shows how this decision treated the case it cites.
- Citywide Social Work & Psychological Servs., PLLC v Autoone Ins. Co. (2011 NY Slip Op 51308(U)) FollowedThe provider's summary judgment cross motion was premature because discovery remained outstanding.
- Allstate Social Work & Psychological Svcs, PLLC v GEICO Gen. Ins. Co. (2010 NY Slip Op 52162(U)) FollowedA provider that fails to timely challenge discovery demands must respond, except as to privileged or palpably improper matters.
- State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v Mallela (2005 NY Slip Op 02416) FollowedFraudulently incorporated medical providers are ineligible for no-fault reimbursement under 11 NYCRR 65-3.16 (a) (12).
- Multiquest, P.L.L.C. v Allstate Ins. Co. (2007 NY Slip Op 27366) FollowedA professional service limited liability company is ineligible for no-fault reimbursement if it violates licensing requirements.
- One Beacon Ins. Group, LLC v Midland Med. Care, P.C. (2008 NY Slip Op 06813)The insurers raised a triable issue of fraudulent incorporation despite evidence of physician ownership and oversight of the provider.
- Q-B Jewish Med. Rehabilitation, P.C. v Allstate Ins. Co. (2011 NY Slip Op 51551(U))The insurer justified financial and tax discovery on provider eligibility, but the provider's remaining discovery responses were sufficient.
Similar decisions
- Queens Brooklyn Med. Rehab, P.C. v Allstate Ins. Co. (2011 NY Slip Op 52010(U))The insurer established special circumstances warranting disclosure of the provider's tax documents concerning licensing eligibility.
- Allstate Social Work & Psychological Svcs., PLLC v Auto One Ins. Co. (2011 NY Slip Op 52362(U))The insurer's motion to compel supplemental discovery was premature because the provider had no opportunity to respond to the new demands.
- Jamaica Dedicated Med. Care, P.C. v Allstate Ins. Co. (2013 NY Slip Op 51745(U))The insurer justified discovery on provider licensing eligibility, and the provider's certificate of readiness incorrectly stated discovery was complete.
- All Boro Psychological Services, P.C. v Auto One Ins. Co. (2012 NY Slip Op 50777(U))A provider that misses discovery objection deadlines must respond except as to privileged or palpably improper demands.
- Jamhil Med., P.C. v Allstate Ins. Co. (2014 NY Slip Op 51028(U))The provider's refusal to comply with court-ordered discovery without a reasonable excuse warranted dismissal under CPLR 3126.