Key Takeaway
Court ruling on late notice of trial motions and Malella defense standards in NY no-fault insurance cases, including timing rules and professional corporation compliance.
Q-B Jewish Med. Rehabilitation, P.C. v Allstate Ins. Co., 2011 NY Slip Op 51551(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2011)
- the 20-day time period to make a motion to strike is not absolute.
2)”detailed and specific reasons for believing that plaintiff is a professional service corporation which fails to comply with applicable state or local licensing laws”
- Why do Dr. McGee facilities seem to have these Malella issues?
Trivia – I subpoenaed Dr. McGee quite a few years ago to come to a trial on an EMG/NCV test he performed. He actually showed up. I am not sure what his view on complying with subpoenas is nowadays.
“While defendant’s motion to strike the action from the trial calendar was untimely, under all of the circumstances presented, including the de minimis nature of the delay in moving to strike the action from the trial calendar, contrary to plaintiff’s contention, it cannot be said that the Civil Court’s determination to consider the motion rather than deny it as untimely was an improvident exercise of discretion (see CPLR 2004; Uniform Rules of the New York City Civil Court § 208.17 ). 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 ), a defense which is not precluded.”
Related Articles
- Late motion to strike note of issue can be considered
- Notice of Trial stricken
- Certificate of readiness that says discovery is outstanding is deemed a nullity
- A plain disaster
- New York No-Fault Insurance Law
Legal Update (February 2026): Since this 2011 post, CPLR 2004 provisions regarding court discretion and excuse of procedural defaults may have been amended, and Uniform Rules governing Civil Court motion practice and trial calendar procedures have likely been updated. Additionally, case law interpreting the Mallela standard for professional service corporation licensing compliance and no-fault eligibility may have evolved. Practitioners should verify current provisions of CPLR 2004 and applicable Uniform Rules, as well as recent appellate decisions addressing Mallela challenges and late motion practice.