September 6, 2012

All Boro Psychological Servs., P.C. v Allstate Ins. Co. (2012 NY Slip Op 51775(U))

Headnote

The court considered an appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York denying the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and granting the defendant's cross motion to compel discovery pursuant to CPLR 3124. The main issue decided in this case was whether the defendant properly substantiated its allegations of fraudulent incorporation in order to warrant disclosure. The holding of the court was that the defendant did properly substantiate its allegations, and therefore, the Civil Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and granting the defendant's cross motion to compel disclosure. The order was affirmed by the court, and the plaintiff's remaining contentions on appeal were found to lack merit.

Reported in New York Official Reports at All Boro Psychological Servs., P.C. v Allstate Ins. Co. (2012 NY Slip Op 51775(U))

All Boro Psychological Servs., P.C. v Allstate Ins. Co. (2012 NY Slip Op 51775(U)) [*1]

All Boro Psychological Servs., P.C. v Allstate Ins. Co.

2012 NY Slip Op 51775(U) [36 Misc 3d 157(A)]

Decided on September 6, 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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on September 6, 2012

SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 2d, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS

PRESENT: : PESCE, P.J., RIOS and ALIOTTA, JJ
2011-369 K C.

All Boro Psychological Services, P.C. as Assignee of ARKADIY UGORSKIY and NATALIA KOTYLEVA, Appellant,
against
Allstate Ins. Co., Respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Peter Paul Sweeney, J.), entered October 7, 2010. The order denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and granted defendant’s cross motion to compel discovery pursuant to CPLR 3124.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs.

In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Civil Court which denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and granted defendant’s cross motion to compel discovery pursuant to CPLR 3124. Contrary to plaintiff’s argument on appeal, defendant properly substantiated its allegations of fraudulent incorporation so as to warrant disclosure (see State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v Mallela, 4 NY3d 313 [2005]; Lexington Acupuncture, P.C. v General Assur. Co., 35 Misc 3d 42 [App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2012]). Consequently, the Civil Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and granting defendant’s cross motion to compel disclosure. Plaintiff’s remaining contentions on appeal lack merit. [*2]

Accordingly, the order is affirmed.

Pesce, P.J., Rios and Aliotta, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: September 06, 2012