Key Takeaway
Court denies preliminary injunction in Liberty Mutual fraud case, finding insufficient evidence of fraudulent incorporation despite gaps in EUO testimony.
This article is part of our ongoing declaratory judgment action coverage, with 117 published articles analyzing declaratory judgment action 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.
Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v Branch Med., P.C., 2016 NY Slip Op 31706(U)(Sup. Ct. NY Co. 2016)
(1) In connection with one such claim, at an examination under oath (EUO) held on March 31, 2014, Nicholas testified that he and his brother, Scott, solely owned and controlled Branch, that their compensation was tied to company profits, and that defendant Mark Levitan served as Branch’s “administrative executive,” overseeing company staff, marketing, bookkeeping, and internal HIPAA procedures, with online access to Branch’s bank account. He was not a physician. When questioned further about Levitan, Nicholas was instructed by counsel not to answer questions about Levitan’s compensation relative to his and Scott’s, nor whether Levitan had been involved in any business owned by Nicholas before Branch.
(2) “Nothing in Nicholas’s testimony evidences fraud, nor do the unanswered verification requests. Moreover, the requests were improper. (See Is. Chiropractic Testing, P. C. v Nationwide Ins. Co., 35 Misc 3d 1235, 2012 NY Slip Op 51001, *2 ”
(3) “Even if the alleged gaps in Nicholas’s testimony support an inference that Levitan earned more than him and Scott, it is consistent with Levitan, as staff, earning a salary, whereas Nicholas and Scott, as owners/shareholders, earned compensation based on the corporation’s profits. And even if Levitan was affiliated with a prior business owned by Nicholas, it proves nothing absent evidence he owned or controlled it.”
(4) Plaintiffs’ remaining allegations are unsubstantiated and based on speculation, and to the extent that plaintiffs rely on Springer’s EUO, they fail to provide or point to the pertinent portions of his testimony. Plaintiffs thus fail to establish, by clear and convincing evidence, the likelihood of success on the merits of their claim that Branch and Windsor were fraudulently incorporated and ineligible to receive no-fault benefits”
This one is interesting. I never liked the whole directing not to answer thing. The questions were relevant regarding compensation of the administrator of the practice. Ultimately, the amount of his compensation relative to his bona-fide verifiable job duties would lead to legitimate verification requests for financial documents. The Court got that wrong, simple.
As to the Court applying District Court decisions disallowing verification of financial documentation, the regulations prefer that these document exchanges take place pre-suit. Remember the case where Supreme Court was reversed when the Court granted discovery in the form of financials during arbitration? The Court cited 65-3.5 and 65-3.6.
I think the decision is wrong and should be appealed. Unless, I am missing something?
By the way, I do not disagree that a practice manager could or maybe should make more than the principals. But, the insurance carrier should have been entitled to ask more questions at the EUO and, only if the answers to the questions raise legitimate concerns, should further documentary discovery be required.
Related Articles
- Understanding failure to cooperate in insurance claims
- When reasonable excuse defenses fall short in declaratory judgment actions
- How judicial notice impacts Supreme Court declaratory judgment cases
- Common pitfalls in declaratory judgment documentation requirements
- Insurance companies’ denial of claims strategies and legal challenges
Legal Update (February 2026): Since this 2016 decision, New York’s no-fault regulations under sections 65-3.5 and 65-3.6 have undergone multiple amendments affecting verification procedures and examination under oath protocols. Additionally, fee schedule updates and procedural modifications to declaratory judgment actions in no-fault disputes may impact the analytical framework discussed in this case. Practitioners should verify current regulatory provisions and recent decisional law when addressing similar verification and EUO issues.
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
Declaratory Judgment Actions in Insurance Law
Declaratory judgment actions under CPLR 3001 allow insurers and claimants to obtain a judicial determination of their rights under an insurance policy before or during the course of litigation. In the no-fault context, carriers frequently seek declaratory judgments on coverage, fraud, and policy procurement issues. These articles analyze the procedural requirements, strategic considerations, and substantive standards governing declaratory judgment practice in New York insurance disputes.
117 published articles in Declaratory Judgment Action
Keep Reading
More Declaratory Judgment Action 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, 2021EUO Declaratory Judgment
Court rules on EUO no-show case involving mailing issues, mutual rescheduling disputes, and provider's untimely bill submissions in no-fault insurance litigation.
May 14, 2020Another IME no-show victory shrowded in American Transit citations
Court victory for insurer after patient's IME no-show, featuring American Transit citations and analysis of denial rights in New York no-fault cases.
Jun 4, 2014Interesting Mallela case from the Appellate Term, Second Department
Expert analysis of the Appellate Term ruling on physician billing for acupuncture services in New York. Learn compliance requirements for medical practices.
Feb 25, 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, 2018Trial de novos and exhausting administrative remedies
Appeals of trial de novo rulings and Article 75 decisions in NY no-fault insurance arbitration cases, including master arbitration brief requirements and administrative remedies.
Jul 7, 2016Common Questions
Frequently Asked Questions
What is a declaratory judgment action in insurance litigation?
A declaratory judgment action under CPLR 3001 asks the court to determine the rights and obligations of the parties under an insurance policy. In no-fault practice, insurers frequently file declaratory judgment actions to establish that they have no obligation to pay claims — for example, by seeking a declaration that the policy is void due to fraud or material misrepresentation on the application. Defendants can cross-move for summary judgment or raise counterclaims for the unpaid benefits.
What is a declaratory judgment action in no-fault insurance?
A declaratory judgment action is a lawsuit asking the court to determine the rights and obligations of the parties — typically whether an insurer has a duty to pay no-fault benefits. Insurers often file these actions to establish they have no obligation to pay, citing policy exclusions, fraud, or coverage disputes.
When do insurers file declaratory judgment actions?
Insurers commonly file declaratory judgment actions when they believe a policy is void due to material misrepresentation, the loss was intentional, or there is a coverage dispute. Under NY Insurance Law, the insurer must demonstrate a justiciable controversy and typically seeks a declaration that it has no duty to indemnify or defend.
How does a declaratory judgment affect my no-fault benefits?
If the court rules in the insurer's favor, your no-fault benefits may be terminated. However, if the insurer fails to meet its burden of proof or did not timely commence the action, the court may rule in your favor, requiring the insurer to continue paying benefits. Having experienced counsel is critical in these proceedings.
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 declaratory judgment action 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.