Skip to main content
Preliminary injunction denied – the analysis is questionable
Declaratory Judgment Action

Preliminary injunction denied – the analysis is questionable

By Jason Tenenbaum 8 min read

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.


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

View all Declaratory Judgment Action articles

Common 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?

Attorney Jason Tenenbaum

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.

24+ years in practice 1,000+ appeals written 100K+ no-fault cases $100M+ recovered

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.

Jason Tenenbaum, Personal Injury Attorney serving Long Island, Nassau County and Suffolk County

About the Author

Jason Tenenbaum

Jason Tenenbaum is a personal injury attorney serving Long Island, Nassau & Suffolk Counties, and New York City. Admitted to practice in NY, NJ, FL, TX, GA, MI, and Federal courts, Jason is one of the few attorneys who writes his own appeals and tries his own cases. Since 2002, he has authored over 2,353 articles on no-fault insurance law, personal injury, and employment law — a resource other attorneys rely on to stay current on New York appellate decisions.

Education
Syracuse University College of Law
Experience
24+ Years
Articles
2,353+ Published
Licensed In
7 States + Federal

Discussion

Comments (3)

Archived from the original blog discussion.

JK
jotaro kujo
I think you did miss something. The failure to provide verification that the carrier is not entitled to ask for cannot be used as an indication of fraud. The Court seemed convinced that the carrier in this case, did not have any indication of fraud on behalf of the provider. Assuming this to be correct, as I do not have the underlying papers, there was no basis to require the provider to answer the questions posed. Even forgetting the financials not being “verifiable” in the claims stage portion of this case, it is still incumbent on the carrier to present a need for documentation it requests. It cannot be that the mere submission of a bill to a carrier allows it to do a forensic accounting of a provider. Thus, the unmistakable conclusion of the court was that you need evidence of wrongdoing to get corporate information at the very least.
J
jtlawadmin Author
“It cannot be that the mere submission of a bill to a carrier allows it to do a forensic accounting of a provider.” – I totally agree. My point of contention was that the interlocutor was not able to ask about the connection to what might have been the money behind the clinic and that person’s role. Assuming those questions were answered and nothing was presented within those answers that would give a good faith basis to believe that the Education Law was being violated, then the verification would have been palpably improper.
JK
jotaro kujo
Your reply is contradictory. You agree that the submission of the bill does not give rise to an issue of wrongdoing. You also agree that the submission of the bill does not allow the carrier to request verification it does not need (want/hopes to find does not equal need). Without a basis for believing the provider is doing something wrong why was the carrier asking the question? Obvious answer; pre-emptive investigation, in hopes of finding wrongdoing with no basis for the original underlying belief. This is exactly what the Court says is not allowed.

Legal Resources

Understanding New York Declaratory Judgment Action Law

New York has a unique legal landscape that affects how declaratory judgment action cases are litigated and resolved. The state's court system includes the Civil Court (for claims up to $25,000), the Supreme Court (the primary trial court for unlimited jurisdiction), the Appellate Term (which hears appeals from lower courts), the Appellate Division (divided into four Departments, with the Second Department covering Long Island, Brooklyn, Queens, Staten Island, and several upstate counties), and the Court of Appeals (the state's highest court). Each court has its own procedural requirements, local rules, and case-assignment practices that can significantly impact the outcome of your case.

For declaratory judgment action matters on Long Island, cases are typically filed in Nassau County Supreme Court (at the courthouse in Mineola) or Suffolk County Supreme Court (in Riverhead). No-fault arbitrations are heard through the American Arbitration Association, which assigns arbitrators throughout the metropolitan area. Workers' compensation claims go to the Workers' Compensation Board, with hearings at district offices across the state. Understanding which forum is appropriate for your case — and the specific procedural rules that apply — is essential for a successful outcome.

The procedural landscape in New York also includes important timing requirements that can affect your case. Most civil actions are subject to statutes of limitations ranging from one year (for intentional torts and claims against municipalities) to six years (for contract actions). Personal injury cases generally have a three-year deadline under CPLR 214(5), while medical malpractice claims must be filed within two and a half years under CPLR 214-a. No-fault insurance claims have their own regulatory deadlines, including 30-day filing requirements for applications and 45-day deadlines for provider claims. Understanding and complying with these deadlines is critical — missing a filing deadline can permanently bar your claim, regardless of how strong your case may be on the merits.

Attorney Jason Tenenbaum regularly practices in all of these venues. His office at 326 Walt Whitman Road, Suite C, Huntington Station, NY 11746, is centrally located on Long Island, providing convenient access to courts and offices throughout Nassau County, Suffolk County, and New York City. Whether you need representation in a no-fault arbitration, a personal injury trial, an employment discrimination hearing, or an appeal to the Appellate Division, the Law Office of Jason Tenenbaum, P.C. brings $24+ years of real courtroom experience to your case. If you have questions about the legal issues discussed in this article, call (516) 750-0595 for a free, no-obligation consultation.

New York's substantive law also presents distinct challenges. In motor vehicle cases, the no-fault system under Insurance Law Article 51 provides first-party benefits regardless of fault, but limits the right to sue for non-economic damages unless the plaintiff establishes a "serious injury" under one of nine statutory categories. This threshold — codified at Insurance Law Section 5102(d) — requires medical evidence showing more than a minor or subjective injury, and courts have developed detailed standards for each category. Fractures must be documented through imaging studies. Claims of permanent consequential limitation or significant limitation of use require quantified range-of-motion testing with comparison to norms. The 90/180-day category demands proof that the plaintiff was unable to perform substantially all of their usual daily activities for at least 90 of the 180 days following the accident.

In employment discrimination cases, the legal standards vary depending on whether the claim arises under state or local law. The New York State Human Rights Law employs a burden-shifting framework: the plaintiff must first establish a prima facie case by showing membership in a protected class, qualification for the position, an adverse employment action, and circumstances giving rise to an inference of discrimination. The burden then shifts to the employer to articulate a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for its decision. If the employer meets this burden, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the stated reason is pretextual. The New York City Human Rights Law, by contrast, applies a broader standard, asking whether the plaintiff was treated less well than other employees because of a protected characteristic.

Free Consultation — No Upfront Fees

Injured on Long Island?
We Fight for What You Deserve.

Serving Nassau County, Suffolk County, and all of New York City. You pay nothing unless we win.

The Law Office of Jason Tenenbaum, P.C. has been fighting for the rights of injured New Yorkers since 2002. With over 24 years of experience handling personal injury, no-fault insurance, employment discrimination, and workers' compensation cases, Jason Tenenbaum brings the legal knowledge and courtroom experience your case demands. Every consultation is free and confidential, and we work on a contingency fee basis — meaning you pay absolutely nothing unless we recover compensation for you.

Available 24/7  ·  No fees unless you win  ·  Serving Long Island & NYC

Injured? Don't Wait.

Get Your Free Case Evaluation Today

No fees unless we win — available 24/7 for emergencies.

Call Now Free Review