January 10, 2011

62-41 Woodhaven Med., P.C. v Adirondack Ins. Exch. (2011 NY Slip Op 50026(U))

Headnote

The main issue in this case was whether the plaintiff, 62-41 Woodhaven Medical, P.C., should be compelled to produce copies of its corporate tax returns and tax records regarding its professional employees. The defendant had argued that the plaintiff was ineligible to recover no-fault benefits because it failed to meet applicable state and local licensing requirements. The court found that the defendant's cross motion papers were sufficient to establish that special circumstances exist which warrant the disclosure of the plaintiff's corporate tax returns and its professional employees' tax records. As a result, the court affirmed the order, without costs, granting the branch of defendant's cross motion seeking to compel plaintiff to produce these documents. The complaint would be dismissed in the event plaintiff failed to produce these documents.

Reported in New York Official Reports at 62-41 Woodhaven Med., P.C. v Adirondack Ins. Exch. (2011 NY Slip Op 50026(U))

62-41 Woodhaven Med., P.C. v Adirondack Ins. Exch. (2011 NY Slip Op 50026(U)) [*1]

62-41 Woodhaven Med., P.C. v Adirondack Ins. Exch.

2011 NY Slip Op 50026(U) [30 Misc 3d 131(A)]

Decided on January 10, 2011

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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on January 10, 2011

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

APPELLATE TERM: 2nd, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS

PRESENT: : GOLIA, J.P., PESCE and STEINHARDT, JJ
2009-1635 Q C.

62-41 Woodhaven Medical, P.C. as Assignee of WILSON RODRIGUEZ, Appellant,
against
Adirondack Ins. Exchange c/o ONE BEACON INS. CO., Respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Diane A. Lebedeff, J.), entered June 11, 2009. The order, insofar as appealed from as limited by the brief, granted the branch of defendant’s cross motion seeking to compel plaintiff to produce copies of its corporate tax returns and its tax records regarding its professional employees, and provided that the complaint would be dismissed in the event plaintiff failed to produce these documents.

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 moved for summary judgment. Defendant cross-moved, pursuant to CPLR
3126, to dismiss the complaint due to plaintiff’s failure to provide the information requested in defendant’s interrogatories and defendant’s notice for discovery and inspection or, in the alternative, to compel plaintiff to provide such information. Plaintiff appeals, as limited by the brief, from so much of the Civil Court’s order as granted the branch of defendant’s cross motion seeking to compel plaintiff to produce copies of its corporate tax returns and its tax records regarding its professional employees, and provided that the complaint would be dismissed in the event plaintiff failed to produce these documents.

Defendant’s cross motion papers set forth detailed and specific reasons for believing that plaintiff is ineligible to recover no-fault benefits because plaintiff fails to meet applicable state and local licensing requirements (see Insurance Department Regulations [11 NYCRR] § 65-3.16 [a] [12]; State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v Mallela, 4 NY3d 313 [2005]). As defendant’s cross motion papers were sufficient to establish that special circumstances exist which warrant [*2]disclosure of plaintiff’s corporate tax returns and its professional employees’ tax records (see CPLR 3101; One Beacon Ins. Group, LLC v Midland Med. Care, P.C., 54 AD3d 738 [2008]; Great Wall Acupuncture v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 20 Misc 3d 136[A], 2008 NY Slip Op 51529[U] [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2008]; Statewide Med. Servs., P.C. v Travelers Ins. Co., 13 Misc 3d 134[A], 2006 NY Slip Op 52014[U] [App Term, 1st Dept 2006], revg 9 Misc 3d 1124[A], 2005 NY Slip Op 51773[U] [Civ Ct, Bronx County 2005]; see also Dore v Allstate Indem. Co., 264 AD2d 804 [1999]; cf. Benfeld v Fleming Props., LLC, 44 AD3d 599, 600 [2007]; Altidor v State-Wide Ins. Co., 22 AD3d 435 [2005]), the order, insofar as appealed from, is affirmed.

Golia, J.P., Pesce and Steinhardt, JJ., concur.