January 24, 2012

Q-B Jewish Med. Rehabilitation, P.C. v Allstate Ins. Co. (2012 NY Slip Op 50152(U))

Headnote

The court considered the facts that Q-B Jewish Med. Rehabilitation, P.C. was suing Allstate Insurance Company to recover first-party no-fault benefits and Allstate had requested financial and tax records from the plaintiff during the discovery process to determine if the plaintiff was eligible to recover these benefits. The main issue was whether Q-B Jewish Med. Rehabilitation, P.C. could recover the benefits and whether the defendant was entitled to its requested discovery. The court held that the defendant's motion to vacate the notice of trial and compel plaintiff to provide responses to its discovery demands was granted, on the condition that the plaintiff provide the requested financial and tax records, including W-2 and 1099 forms for individuals who provided the services, in order for the case to proceed to trial.

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)) [*1]
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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.
Decided on January 24, 2012

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.
Q-B Jewish Med. Rehabilitation, P.C. as Assignee of ROMAN ABRAMOV, Appellant,

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