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.
This article is part of our ongoing discovery coverage, with 102 published articles analyzing discovery 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.
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?
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.
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.
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
Discovery Practice in New York Courts
Discovery is the pre-trial process through which parties exchange information relevant to the dispute. In New York, discovery practice is governed by CPLR Article 31 and involves depositions, interrogatories, document demands, and physical examinations. Disputes over the scope of discovery, compliance with demands, and sanctions for noncompliance are frequent in both no-fault and personal injury cases. These articles analyze discovery rules, court decisions on discovery disputes, and strategies for effective discovery practice.
102 published articles in Discovery
Keep Reading
More Discovery Analysis
Litigation Funding Disclosure in New York: What Lituma v. Liberty Coca-Cola Means for Both Bars — and for Injured Clients
A NY appellate court allowed defendants to discover third-party litigation funding in a personal injury suit. What Lituma means for both bars and claimants.
Jun 14, 2026Another Discovery
Appellate Term ruling on discovery objections shows courts won't disturb trial court discretion when defendants fail to timely object within CPLR's 20-day period.
May 22, 2021EUO no show substantiated
Natural Therapy Acupuncture v State Farm: New York court upholds EUO no-show denial when insurer proves proper mailing and defense counsel confirms non-appearance.
Feb 11, 2014On the CPLR front – 3126(3) motion granted when party deponent lies during deposition
Appellate Term reverses Civil Court, grants CPLR 3126(3) motion to dismiss complaint when plaintiff perjured herself about medical history during EBT deposition.
Apr 16, 2011EBT's in no fault practice – "laches does not apply"
Queens Chiropractic v Country Wide ruling that time delays don't waive insurance carriers' EBT rights in no-fault cases, contrasting with First Department precedent.
Jun 4, 2009Special Referee cannot determine BP issues
Court rules special referees lack authority to determine bill of particulars disputes, clarifying the distinction between disclosure procedures and pleading amplification.
Jun 10, 2017Was 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 discovery 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.