Key Takeaway
Court finds fee-splitting arrangement violated Education Law, showing how contractual obligations can be challenged beyond no-fault insurance contexts.
This article is part of our ongoing mallela issues coverage, with 32 published articles analyzing mallela issues 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.
In New York’s complex legal landscape, disputes over contractual arrangements often extend far beyond their apparent scope. Fee-splitting arrangements between healthcare providers have become a particular area of scrutiny, especially when parties seek to avoid contractual obligations. The intersection of professional regulations and commercial relationships creates unique challenges that courts must navigate carefully.
The South Shore Neurologic case demonstrates how allegations of improper fee arrangements can surface in various contexts, not just traditional no-fault insurance disputes. This principle has broader implications for healthcare providers who structure their business relationships, particularly when those arrangements might be challenged as pretextual. Understanding these dynamics is crucial for practitioners dealing with Mallela defenses and related challenges.
Jason Tenenbaum’s Analysis:
South Shore Neurologic Assoc., P.C. v Mobile Health Mgt. Servs., Inc., 2014 NY Slip Op 06963 (2d Dept. 2014)
Self-referrals and fee splitting can garner attention whenever any payor wishes to avoid a contractual or quasi-contractual obligation. It transcends no-fault. This one looks interesting:
“South Shore established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law declaring that the commercial relationship constituted an unlawful fee-splitting arrangement in violation of Education Law § 6530(19) and 8 NYCRR 29.1(b)(4) by submitting documents and deposition testimony showing that certain contracts were a pretext to justify the appellants’ receipt of one third of the profits of South Shore’s MRI practice ”
The net effect of this fee sharing arrangement was left undecided according to the Appellate Division.
Key Takeaway
This case illustrates how fee-splitting allegations can emerge as defenses across various commercial disputes, not just no-fault insurance cases. Courts will examine the substance of arrangements rather than their formal structure, particularly when contracts appear pretextual. The decision reinforces that regulatory violations can impact contractual enforcement even when the ultimate consequences remain unresolved.
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
Mallela Fraud Defense in No-Fault Insurance
The Mallela defense — named after the Court of Appeals decision in State Farm v. Mallela — allows insurers to deny no-fault claims by proving that a medical provider fraudulently incorporated to circumvent licensing requirements. Establishing a Mallela defense requires extensive investigation and evidence of corporate structure, ownership, and control. These articles analyze the Mallela doctrine, its procedural requirements, and the evolving case law that shapes how courts evaluate fraudulent incorporation claims in no-fault practice.
32 published articles in Mallela issues
Keep Reading
More Mallela issues Analysis
Wind it up
Professional corporation can continue operating and seek no-fault benefits despite revoked license, according to NY Appellate Term ruling on Business Corporation Law requirements.
Mar 17, 2021Discovery penalty: dismissal
NY court dismisses medical provider's no-fault case for discovery violations and refusal to answer deposition questions about doctor's business interests
Apr 30, 2019Understanding Mallela-Based Discovery in New York No-Fault Insurance Cases
Expert guidance on Mallela-based discovery in New York no-fault insurance cases. Protecting Long Island & NYC healthcare providers. Call (516) 750-0595.
Mar 26, 2010Carothers to the COA (I missed it)
Court of Appeals grants leave in Progressive v Carothers case, creating rare four-opinion matter with certified question on Second Department's ruling
Feb 21, 2018An unincorporated solo practitioner using his own social security number.
Court ruling on proper taxpayer identification requirements for no-fault insurance billing providers and when social security numbers vs EINs must be used.
Sep 16, 2016Notice of Trial vacated based upon a "detailed" Mallela showing
Court vacates trial notice when defendant provides detailed Mallela defense showing plaintiff lacks proper licensing requirements for no-fault benefits recovery.
Apr 8, 2012Common Questions
Frequently Asked Questions
What are Mallela issues in no-fault insurance?
Mallela issues refer to a defense based on State Farm v. Mallela (2006), where the Court of Appeals held that insurers can deny no-fault claims to medical providers who operate fraudulent enterprises. Under Mallela, if a provider is controlled by unlicensed individuals in violation of Business Corporation Law §1507 or Education Law, the provider is not eligible to receive no-fault reimbursement. Insurers use Mallela defenses in declaratory judgment actions and as affirmative defenses in collection actions.
Was this article helpful?
About the Author
Jason Tenenbaum, Esq.
Jason Tenenbaum is the founding attorney of the Law Office of Jason Tenenbaum, P.C., headquartered at 326 Walt Whitman Road, Suite C, Huntington Station, New York 11746. With over 24 years of experience since founding the firm in 2002, Jason has written more than 1,000 appeals, handled over 100,000 no-fault insurance cases, and recovered over $100 million for clients across Long Island, Nassau County, Suffolk County, Queens, Brooklyn, Manhattan, the Bronx, and Staten Island. He is one of the few attorneys in the state who both writes his own appellate briefs and tries his own cases.
Jason is admitted to practice in New York, New Jersey, Florida, Texas, Georgia, and Michigan state courts, as well as multiple federal courts. His 2,353+ published legal articles analyzing New York case law, procedural developments, and litigation strategy make him one of the most prolific legal commentators in the state. He earned his Juris Doctor from Syracuse University College of Law.
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 mallela issues 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.