Why Trust This Analysis
This article is part of our ongoing coverage coverage, with 181 published articles analyzing coverage issues across New York State. Attorney Jason Tenenbaum brings 24+ years of hands-on experience to this analysis, drawing from his work on more than 1,000 appeals, over 100,000 no-fault cases, and recovery of over $100 million for clients throughout Nassau County, Suffolk County, Queens, Brooklyn, Manhattan, and the Bronx. For personalized legal advice about how these principles apply to your specific situation, contact our Long Island office at (516) 750-0595 for a free consultation.
Understanding Mallela Defenses in No-Fault Arbitration Proceedings
The intersection of fraudulent incorporation defenses and arbitration jurisdiction represents a crucial area of New York No-Fault Insurance Law. When insurance companies suspect that medical providers have been fraudulently incorporated, they often face a strategic decision: challenge the provider’s standing in court or proceed to arbitration. The First Department’s decision in Matter of Countrywide Ins. Co. v DHD Med., P.C. clarifies that once an applicant demands arbitration, even Mallela-based fraudulent incorporation defenses must be resolved by the arbitrator rather than the courts.
This ruling has significant implications for how insurance carriers approach potential fraud cases, particularly when compared to other coverage-based defenses that can still be litigated in court proceedings.
Jason Tenenbaum’s Analysis:
Matter of Countrywide Ins. Co. v DHD Med., P.C., 2011 NY Slip Op 05864 (1st Dept. 2011)
Free Consultation · No Fee Unless We Win
Does this apply to your situation?
Every case is different. Get a free, confidential case review from an experienced attorney who can tell you exactly where you stand.
“Petitioner argues that respondent is a fraudulently incorporated medical services provider and therefore is not only ineligible for reimbursement of no-fault payments (see State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v Mallela, 4 NY3d 313 ) but is also precluded from demanding arbitration pursuant to Insurance Law § 5106(b) (and the no-fault policy issued by petitioner). Contrary to this argument, the defense of fraudulent incorporation is “for the arbitrator and not for the courts” (see Matter of Nassau Ins. Co. v McMorris, 41 NY2d 701 ; Matter of MVAIC v Interboro Med. Care & Diagnostic PC, 73 AD3d 667, 667 ).”
I take it this was a Special proceeding commenced through an Article 75, seeking injunctive relief. I think this decision would have been different had an affirmative lawsuit been commenced seeking Mallela based relief prior to the filing of an arbitration.
I would also note that this decision should not impact IME non-coop and EUO non-coop based DJ’s since those are “coverage” cases. Mallela is a standing based issue.
Key Takeaway
While Mallela fraudulent incorporation defenses must be arbitrated when demanded by applicants, this ruling doesn’t affect coverage-based defenses like IME or EUO non-cooperation claims. The timing and type of legal proceeding initiated by the insurance carrier can significantly impact whether courts will address these Mallela-related challenges before arbitration proceeds.
Legal Update (February 2026): Since this 2011 post, New York’s no-fault insurance regulations and arbitration procedures under Insurance Law § 5106 may have been amended through legislative updates or regulatory changes. Additionally, subsequent appellate decisions may have further refined the application of Mallela defenses in arbitration proceedings, and practitioners should verify current arbitration rules and case law developments when addressing fraudulent incorporation claims.
Related Articles
Legal Context
Why This Matters for Your Case
New York law is among the most complex and nuanced in the country, with distinct procedural rules, substantive doctrines, and court systems that differ significantly from other jurisdictions. The Civil Practice Law and Rules (CPLR) governs every stage of civil litigation, from service of process through trial and appeal. The Appellate Division, Appellate Term, and Court of Appeals create a rich and ever-evolving body of case law that practitioners must follow.
Attorney Jason Tenenbaum has practiced across these areas for over 24 years, writing more than 1,000 appellate briefs and publishing over 2,353 legal articles that attorneys and clients rely on for guidance. The analysis in this article reflects real courtroom experience — from motion practice in Civil Court and Supreme Court to oral arguments before the Appellate Division — and a deep understanding of how New York courts actually apply the law in practice.
About This Topic
Insurance Coverage Issues in New York
Coverage disputes determine whether an insurance policy provides benefits for a particular claim. In the no-fault context, coverage questions involve policy inception, named insured status, vehicle registration requirements, priority of coverage among multiple insurers, and the applicability of exclusions. These articles examine how New York courts resolve coverage disputes, the burden of proof on coverage defenses, and the interplay between regulatory requirements and policy language.
181 published articles in Coverage
Keep Reading
More Coverage Analysis
IME no-show is a policy defense triggering the hourly attorney fee provision
Learn how IME no-show defenses trigger hourly attorney fee provisions in NY no-fault insurance. Court rules failure to attend IME is policy defense.
May 22, 2021
Contractual deemer
New York courts examine when out-of-state insurers can avoid no-fault coverage obligations through contractual deemer provisions and policy language analysis.
Apr 24, 2021
Causation – Be aware of seeking a trial de novo after a master arbitrator affirms an award
Learn how to prove causation in NY no-fault insurance claims. Expert analysis of State Farm v Stack case for Long Island and NYC accident victims.
Oct 11, 2008
Preliminary injunction denied – the analysis is questionable
Court denies preliminary injunction in Liberty Mutual fraud case, finding insufficient evidence of fraudulent incorporation despite gaps in EUO testimony.
Sep 16, 2016
There is no policy of insurance in effect – the standard is set forth below
New York court clarifies insurance companies don't need exhaustive documentation when proving no coverage exists, setting practical standards for no-fault cases.
Aug 20, 2014
From your perspective – not mine
Court of Appeals clarifies that intentional act exclusions in auto insurance should be evaluated from the injured person's perspective, not the actor's.
Mar 30, 2011Was this article helpful?
Disclaimer: This article is published by the Law Office of Jason Tenenbaum, P.C. for informational and educational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice, and no attorney-client relationship is formed by reading this content. The legal principles discussed may not apply to your specific situation, and the law may have changed since this article was last updated.
New York law varies by jurisdiction — court decisions in one Appellate Division department may not be followed in another, and local court rules in Nassau County Supreme Court differ from those in Suffolk County Supreme Court, Kings County Civil Court, or Queens County Supreme Court. The Appellate Division, Second Department (which covers Long Island, Brooklyn, Queens, and Staten Island) and the Appellate Term (which hears appeals from lower courts) each have distinct procedural requirements and precedents that affect litigation strategy.
If you need legal help with a coverage matter, contact our office at (516) 750-0595 for a free consultation. We serve clients throughout Long Island (Huntington, Babylon, Islip, Brookhaven, Smithtown, Riverhead, Southampton, East Hampton), Nassau County (Hempstead, Garden City, Mineola, Great Neck, Manhasset, Freeport, Long Beach, Rockville Centre, Valley Stream, Westbury, Hicksville, Massapequa), Suffolk County (Hauppauge, Deer Park, Bay Shore, Central Islip, Patchogue, Brentwood), Queens, Brooklyn, Manhattan, the Bronx, Staten Island, and Westchester County. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
