Key Takeaway
Court vacates trial notice when defendant provides detailed Mallela defense showing plaintiff lacks proper licensing requirements for no-fault benefits recovery.
In New York no-fault insurance litigation, healthcare providers must meet specific licensing requirements to be eligible for benefit recovery. When insurance companies raise what’s known as a Mallela defense, they’re challenging the provider’s fundamental eligibility to receive no-fault payments based on alleged licensing deficiencies.
The procedural aspects of bringing cases to trial require careful attention to detail. Courts expect that discovery has been properly completed before a case can proceed to trial, and any misrepresentations in trial notices can have significant consequences for litigation strategy.
Court Ruling on Trial Notice and Discovery Requirements
Jason Tenenbaum’s Analysis:
VE Med. Care, P.C. v Auto One Ins. Co., 2012 NY Slip Op 50571(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2012)
“Because the notice of trial and certificate of readiness filed by plaintiff contained the erroneous statement that discovery had been completed, the Civil Court properly granted the branch of defendant’s motion seeking to vacate the notice of trial”
“Defendant’s moving papers set forth detailed and specific reasons for believing that plaintiff is ineligible to recover no-fault benefits because plaintiff fails to meet applicable state and local licensing requirements”
Key Takeaway
This decision demonstrates that courts will vacate trial notices when procedural requirements aren’t met, particularly false statements about discovery completion. More importantly, it shows that Mallela defenses can be successful when supported by detailed, specific evidence challenging a healthcare provider’s licensing compliance, potentially leading to summary judgment outcomes.
